Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL PIER AND GREAT YARMOUTH NEW BRITANNIA PIER) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Future

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's future policy with regard to Gibraltar.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse): I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday and by the Foreign Secretary on Monday.

Mr. Wall: Would the Minister say when the present constitutional committee sitting in Gibraltar will report, and will he give the assurance, for which we have been asking, that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the express wish of the people of Gibraltar?

Mr. Stonehouse: It would be most unwise to make any statement about the constitutional position in Gibraltar except to say that we are not at present proposing to make any progress in this in any way; particularly at this stage it would be unwise as talks are being conducted with the Spanish. On the second point, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister has told the House—that we have no doubt about our sovereignty. We hope that these talks will be resumed soon.

Sir F. Bennett: If the Minister is able today to give us the reassurance that we are absolutely sure about the position in respect of sovereignty, why will not he or one of his right hon. Friends state that we have no intention whatever of relinquishing it?

Mr. Stonehouse: Because, as the Prime Minister has explained to the House on numerous occasions, the constitutional position is that the United Kingdom must negotiate. In view of that position it would be quite unwise for us to give the sort of assurance that is being requested. I think that the House will have been delighted to see reported this morning a statement by the Chief Minister in Gibraltar that he has every confidence in the way in which the talks are being conducted. I think that this will put at rest some of the fears that are now being aroused.

Spanish Workers

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are his long-term plans to replace, by Gibraltarians or by mechanical aids, Spanish personnel now working in Gibraltar.

Mr. Stonehouse: A Committee under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary is at present engaged on the study of increasing productivity, and other aspects of the matter are being examined.

Mr. Tilney: Although we all want friendly relations with Spain, since Gibraltar is at present under duress, should not plans be made whereby sterling at present earned by Spaniards could be saved? Cannot we plan for Gibraltar as Spain plans for her colonies in Morocco?

Mr. Stonehouse: There are considerable plans now being prepared for the development of the economy and I would prefer, before making any statement, to have had these plans fully examined before an announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Radio Station, Francistown

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government pay rent for the radio station at Francistown to the


Bechuanaland Government; and whether it will do so after independence.

Mr. Stonehouse: Not at present, but negotiations are in progress which will cover the position after independence as well as before.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that this is a point on which we must react generously in view of our failure to meet other requests in respect of development in Bechuanaland?

Mr. Stonehouse: As these are commercial negotiations, it would be unwise for me to be drawn on that point. When an announcement can be made about the result of these negotiations, I am sure that it will be made in Bechuanaland.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the Minister accept that this radio equipment, always inaudible, is now completely jammed and, therefore, is not worth any rent payable from anybody to anybody? Would he look at this, which is a serious waste of public funds?

Mr. Stonehouse: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.

Rhodesian Oil Supplies

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent oil, other than aviation fuel, for Rhodesia is being allowed to pass through Bechuanaland from South Africa.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have nothing to add to my Reply on 4th August in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).

Mr. Fisher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the extent of this traffic is reported to be considerable, and in any case why should any be allowed through a British Colony over which we still have control? Does not this completely conflict with the Government's policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia, and what steps are the hon. Gentleman's Department taking to prevent this in future?

Mr. Stonehouse: The reports which the hon. Gentleman has had are quite inaccurate. Reports which I have received

indicate that the supplies are really quite insignificant.

Mr. Paget: Now that the Rhodesians have been able to take off petrol rationing, is there any particular object in trying to see that someone else gets the business?

Mr. Stonehouse: That is a wider question altogether and should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. Bennett: As the Minister has now said that the amounts are insignificant and he presumably has some knowledge on which to base that assertion, why cannot he give us the figures?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that it would be in the interests of Bechuanaland or ourselves to discuss the exact amounts that we may know about, but I am quite sure that we should not be concerned about the quantity of oil going through.

Mr. Fisher: On a point of order. If this matter is still relevant when we resume, I should like to give notice——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Mediator (Proposals)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish the Mediator's proposals for the future of British Honduras in Belize as soon as they are available and before any final arrangement is made with Guatemala.

Mr. Stonehouse: When the Mediator decides that his proposals should be made public, this will be done here and in Belize before any final arrangement is made.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Member agree that the probably quite inaccurate and certainly reprehensible leak to Caribbean newspapers has caused alarm in Belize and that the sooner the actual proposals of the Mediator are published and debated there the better for all concerned? Can he give any idea when that will be possible?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot give a date, but I am sure that as soon as the


Mediator is willing that this should be announced, it will be announced. If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall be dealing with this question in an Adjournment debate tomorrow.

Mr. Rowland: Is my hon. Friend aware that the accuracy of the leak has not yet been publicly challenged? Will he give an assurance that the people as well as the Government of Honduras will be consulted about the final proposals?

Mr. Storehouse: Yes. I am glad to give that assurance. We shall consult the wishes of British Honduras before any final arrangement is made.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Drugs

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total number of persons sent to prison in Hong Kong during 1965; and, of these, how many were drug users.

Mr. Stonehouse: A total of 12,786, of whom 10,668 were found to be drug users.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many pounds of raw opium, prepared opium, morphine and heroin, respectively, were confiscated in Hong Kong during 1965.

Mr. Stonehouse: The figures in pounds are: 6,470, 83·5, 322 and 86·5, respectively.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask him if he is aware that the wholesale price of heroin in Hong Kong is £460 per lb. weight? Is he aware that when the drug is transported from Hong Kong and sold in the United States it fetches £36,500 per lb. weight? Is it not obvious that there must be powerful influences in Hong Kong engaged in this lucrative industry, which is also undermining the well-being of the people of Hong Kong?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am aware that there is a very large illicit trade in narcotics in Hong Kong, but I am also satisfied that the Preventive Branch is doing its best to stamp out this trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Economic Planning Councils (Appointment of Women)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what reply he made to the delegation from the British Federation of University Women asking for the appointment of more women to regional councils.

The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Austen Albu): The reply was that women who are qualified to contribute to regional planning are equally eligible with men for appointment to regional economic planning councils; but there is no intention to appoint women simply because they are women.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the very strong feelings that these appointments have aroused among women's organisations and the fact that there are very many well-qualified women in the regions who could be serving, can my hon. Friend say what arrangements there may be in future for adding women to these councils?

Mr. Albu: We have asked the bodies whom we consult before making these appointments to consider appointing women, and we have given the names of these bodies to the women's organisations so that they shall know which bodies we consult.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Although the Minister of State knows that we have reservations about the policy, and even the need for his Department, would he be good enough to give our personal good wishes both to the new First Secretary and to the old one?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): Not the old one.

Mr. Albu: I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes.

Dividends

Mr. Archer: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he is aware that, on the day following the


Government's appeal for a six months' standstill on increase in income, the boards of two companies recommended increases in their dividends; and whether he will seek powers to discourage further increases in dividends.

Mr. Albu: It was made clear on 20th July that the Government's call for a standstill on prices and incomes was expected to apply to dividends for the twelve-month period. This has been further stressed in paragraph 31 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 3073). If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will have them examined.

Mr. Archer: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is in a position to assure the House that increases in dividends will be discouraged as vigorously as increases in other forms of income?

Mr. Albu: Most certainly. My hon. Friend will probably have noticed that there have been one or two cases where dividend increases already announced have been withdrawn by the companies concerned who have decided not to make them during this twelve-month period.

Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply those same criteria to the prices and products of the nationalised industries, increases in some of which have been announced since 20th July?

Mr. Albu: The procedure applies to the prices of nationalised industries just as much as to other prices.

Immigration

Sir D. Renton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the Government have compared the economic advantages and disadvantages of immigration on the present scale; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Albu: Her Majesty's Government are supporting a general study of the economic implications of immigration, but until this work is completed and more information is available, my right hon. Friend cannot make a statement.

Sir D. Renton: Would the hon. Gentleman look at the recent article in the July issue of the Lloyd's Bank Review,

in which it is suggested that immigrants may be disadvantageous to the balance of payments rather than otherwise?

Mr. Albu: I have done so but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the authors of the article made very considerable qualifications to their conclusions. In any case, economic considerations are not the only ones that we have to bear in mind when we are considering immigration policy.

Mr. Freeson: Also on the question of economic considerations, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are thousands of jobs which are not being filled as a result of the present ceiling quota upon Commonwealth immigrants?

Mr. Albu: This only shows how complicated the subject really is.

Mr. Hogg: While most of us will be interested to know of this pending study, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when it is likely to be completed and whether, when completed, it is likely to be published?

Mr. Albu: I think that it will be published. It is not pending; it is taking place now and is being carried out at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

Price Increases

Mr. Dickens: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what arrangements he has made in his Department to ensure that complaints by the public about unauthorised price increases made since 20th July are properly dealt with and acted upon.

Mr. Albra: Complaints about particular price increases are dealt with by the Government Department that sponsors the industry concerned. All appropriate steps will be taken to follow up complaints received.

Mr. Dickens: Can my hon. Friend consider the advisability of making the Government's information services available so that people can know what the facilities are for reporting unauthorised price increases?

Mr. Albu: We will certainly consider that, but the procedure is that described


by my right hon. Friend in the answer he gave on 25th May.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the Department to which complaints should be sent against the increase of charges which the Post Office proposes to make on 3rd October in flagrant breach of paragraph 32 of the White Paper on the standstill of prices?

Mr. Albu: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that these increases were part of the measures announced by the Prime Minister on 20th July. Of course, if the hon. and learned Gentleman has any complaint to make, he will no doubt write to the Postmaster-General.

Bonus Payments

Mr. Dickens: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether bonus payments made to employees at the employer's discretion are to be subject to the incomes standstill.

Mr. Albu: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dickens: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the fact that there is a need for the strictest control by the central government over bonus payments made, not on an individual's performance toward a firm, but upon the profitability of that firm?

Mr. Albu: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have to watch this question of bonus payments very closely indeed. I am glad that he has distinguished between bonus payments which are part of an incentive bonus system, where in operation, and other types of bonus payments.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Can the Minister of State tell us how he proposes to carry out the terms of the answer which he has given to the House? Is he going to have a vast increase in the army of people who are supposed to give information? How is he going to ensure that such bonus payments which go on are within the standstill?

Mr. Albu: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the standstill is on a voluntary basis, and so far we have very good evidence that industry is co-operating

with the Government in carrying it out. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we hope that this will continue.

Northern Ireland

Mr. McMaster: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking within his responsibilities in the United Kingdom to ensure that the economic and financial restrictions at present in force and to be applied do not cause a rise in unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Albu: Intensified efforts are being made to steer new jobs to Northern Ireland in common with the development areas in Great Britain. The tougher control of industrial development certificates in congested areas, the extension of the system of office development permits, and the building licensing restriction should all be helpful.

Mr. McMaster: Is this the best the Minister of State can say? Is he aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland is 6 per cent., many times above the national average, and that the hardship caused by a credit squeeze such as the present one is bound to affect a marginal area like Northern Ireland more severely than any other part of the country? Will the hon. Gentleman take clear and effective steps to prevent a sharp rise in unemployment in Northern Ireland this winter?

Mr. Albu: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland is lower than it has been for many years. He is also aware of the very energetic steps that my right hon. Friend has taken over the last year to get new industry into Northern Ireland. He may also be aware that the Northern Ireland banks are exempt from the requirement to make special deposits; this will also be helpful to Northern Ireland industry.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that the responsibility for a large part of the unemployment in Northern Ireland is that of the Unionist Stormont Parliament and that we are prevented in this House from in fact—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: If the responsibility does lie there, the hon. Gentleman cannot ask a supplementary question about it.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. In view of the complacency of the Minister of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Notices must be given in the conventional language.

Mr. Fitt: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he is aware of the prospect of redundancy among 4,000 workers in Short Brothers and Harland before the end of 1967; and what steps he will take, including diversification to provide new jobs, to mitigate the effects of this redundancy.

Mr. McMaster: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if, in co-operation with the Northern Ireland Government, he will take immediate steps to create sufficient new jobs in Northern Ireland to employ the men whom the Government expect as a result of their plans for Short Brothers and Harland to be declared redundant between now and the end of 1966; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Albu: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 7th July, a great deal of work is already being done on these problems, both by us and by the Northern Ireland Government, and further announcements can be expected shortly.

Mr. Fitt: Would the Minister of State take it seriously that all political parties in Northern Ireland, including myself and hon. Members opposite, are deeply concerned about the position in Short Brothers and Harland? This factory is of supreme importance within the context of industrial relations in Northern Ireland and many people are deeply concerned. Would the Minister of State give an undertaking to expedite any negotiations which may be taking place so that we may have a successful conclusion?

Mr. Albu: I assure my hon. Friend that negotiations are going on very actively indeed. My hon. Friend may

be pleased to know that Rolls Royce are already advertising for men to be employed on the manufacture of aero engine components. This is in addition to the negotiations which are going on, with a large number of companies. We hope that these negotiations will be very soon brought to a successful conclusion.

Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister of State aware that the trade union leaders responsible at Short Brothers and Harland have informed many Members of the House that no visible progress has been made with the diversification of the works of Short Brothers and Harland, in spite of the appointment of consultants and the receipt of their report a long time ago? Will the hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to deal with this problem, as he promised during the General Election and before?

Mr. Albu: My right hon. Friend has recently seen some of the trade unionists in Northern Ireland, and he does not believe that this can possibly be the case. In any case, the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, will understand that, while negotiations are proceeding, one does not bruit them all over the world.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my hon. Friend make it a condition of the receipt of any aid from this Government that the companies involved do not practise discrimination on the ground of religion or any other mater?

Mr. Albu: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Currie: Can the Minister of State give any indication of the date when an announcement is likely to be made as to the outcome of the negotiations?

Mr. Albu: Obviously one cannot do that. When one is conducting negotiations, one cannot say in advance—in fact one would prejudice the success of the negotiations if one did so—when they may come to an end.

Expenses

Mr. Lubbock: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to expenses during the period of the wages and prices standstill.

Mr. Alba: Paragraph 18(1) of the White Paper (Cmnd. 3073) makes it clear that it is not intended that the standstill should be regarded as applying to increases in payments made in specific compensation for expenditure incurred, e.g. travel and subsistence allowances.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister of State aware that certain local authorities propose to increase the expenses paid to councillors and that this will be particularly resented by ratepayer's who are about the one section of the population not being insulated in any way from the economic measures?

Mr. Albu: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. This is not in any sense a pay increase. It is an increase in the maximum level of the financial loss allowance and is payable only to those who suffer actual loss.

Wages and Dividends

Mr. Driberg: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he proposes to take to redress the unequal and inequitable impact of the incomes standstill on shareholders and on wage-earners since the former will be able to collect accumulated arrears of dividends after the standstill is over, while the latter will never receive the extra wages that they might have been paid during this period.

Mr. Albu: The Government have called for all company distributions, including dividends, not to be increased during the next twelve-month period. They will not hesitate to use their fiscal and other powers to ensure that distributions after the standstill are not increased so as to make good any increases foregone as a result of the standstill.

Mr. Driberg: That answer is very encouraging so far as it goes, but can my hon. Friend say whether the Government will have the power to do that after the standstill is over?

Mr. Albu: Yes. There is no doubt that the Government will have ample powers, certainly ample fiscal powers to deal with this matter. The Government are relying on industry to collaborate in this present situation by observing the standstill in the spirit as well as the letter.

Dame Irene Ward: Could the Minister of State arrange, in the midst of these very important matters, that people holding undated War Loan do not have to suffer further depreviation?

Mr. Albu: I dot not quite see what that has to do with the Question I have been answering.

Agriculture (Economic Development Council)

Mr. Godber: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the Economic Development Council for Agriculture will be set up; and what is the reason for the delay.

Mr. Albu: Our consultations are not yet complete, but my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement fairly soon.

Mr. Godber: This is very disappointing indeed. Is it true that this is the only one of the little N.E.D.C.s which has not yet been set up? If this is so, is not this yet a further indication of this Government's lack of interest in agricultural matters generally?

Mr. Albu: Certainly not. The Government and my right hon. Friend have been pursuing this matter very energetically, but I regret that for the moment we are not able to make a statement about the formation of the Economic Development Council.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Economic Development Council for Agriculture make a searching inquiry into recent increases in farmers' rents, which are a heavy burden on the agricultural industry? Will my hon. Friend do his best to expedite this inquiry, in the interests of farmers and of consumers?

Mr. Albu: I am sure that the Economic Development Council will make all the inquiries and studies it feels are necessary to improve the efficiency and profitability of agriculture.

Mr. Godber: The Minister of State did not answer the first part of my supplementary question. Is it true that this is the only one of the little N.E.D.C.s which has not yet been set up? If this is so, is not this an indication of the Government's complete lack of interest in agricultural matters generally?

Mr. Albu: It is not so. There are several economic development councils which we are considering setting up.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Electricity (Connection Charges)

Mr. Alison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refer the initial connection charges imposed by Electricity boards to the Monopolies Commission.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): No. The monopolies legislation excludes from consideration monopoly conditions which have express statutory authority.

Mr. Alison: Then what does the President of the Board of Trade propose to do about the substantial extra charge imposed upon house buyers as the result of the monopoly position enjoyed by the C.E.G.B.?

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman is interested in that, he should table a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Western Europe (Import Credit Quotas)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade which countries in Western Europe have operated an import credit quota since 1964; and what effect this has had on British exports to those countries, in percentages.

Mr. Jay: None, Sir.

Mrs. Short: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is time he had a look at this? Is it not a fact that Italy and some other countries have organised control of import credit and that we could do this in a selective way and thus have a considerable impact on the import of luxury goods which are not essential at this time?

Mr. Jay: We have indeed had a look at it, but one of the difficulties is that it requires legislation. I am not sure that my hon. Friend would want to go on legislating throughout August and September.

Sir C. Osborne: Why cannot the Government look at the possibility of legislation, as today's trade figures are really disappointing and as we are still

importing vast quantities of some luxury goods which we could well do without? Will the President of the Board of Trade look at this again?

Mr. Jay: This is certainly one method, amongst others, of restraining imports, but there are considerable difficulties.

Sales Promotion

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will contribute to reducing prices by seeking to prohibit the television and newspaper advertising of commodities such as soap, washing powder, petrol, tea, bread, butter and margarine which people will buy whether they are advertised or not.

Mr. Jay: I hope that manufacturers and distributors of these and other goods will seek to reduce prices to the consumer by avoiding disproportionate expenditure on sales promotion. But I do not think that a prohibition of particular promotion methods would be justified.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most important condition to make a prices and incomes policy work is to create the right atmosphere and that an important contribution to this atmosphere would be an attack on excessive advertising of this type, for which the public are paying?

Mr. Jay: I certainly agree that firms, in addition to the manufacturers of detergents, might well examine the possibility of reducing advertising expenditure and thereby charging lower prices to consumers.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the housewife will be extremely disappointed by the reaction of the detergent manufacturers to the Report of the Monopolies Commission and that if they do not pay attention to the findings of the Monopolies Commission, there will be a widespread demand for Government action?

Mr. Jay: I certainly intend to ensure that the consumers' interests here are looked after.

Shipbuilding Industry Board

Dame Irene Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Shipbuilding Industry Board will be set up; and if he will name the personnel.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on 9th August.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that statement was not quite complete as he announced only the name of the Chairman. Could we have the names of the other members? As this matter is very urgent can the right hon. Gentleman now give me an assurance—he has the power—that he will arrange for a debate on the Geddes Report very soon after the House resumes?

Mr. Jay: We hope that it will be possible shortly to name the other members of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, but it is usual to consult the Chairman after his appointment about the other members. As to a debate, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be putting this point to my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House.

Mr. Ogden: Can my right hon. Friend say how many members of the Board will be full-time and how many part-time?

Mr. Jay: It is intended that there should be at least two other full-time members.

Passenger Vessels (Safety)

Mr. Webster: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to enforce Section 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1964, as relating to safety arrangements for passenger vessels carrying more than twelve people.

Mr. Jay: The Board's officers, assisted by the police and other authorities, are active in enforcing this requirement. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Press notice issued by the Board of Trade on 9th August.

Mr. Webster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that following the "Darlwin" disaster there is great concern about this matter? Can he state, for instance, the size of his staff that is employed on enforcement and the numbers of police officers who are specifically attached for these duties?

Mr. Jay: I cannot give the exact numbers without notice. I have, however, already asked my staff to tighten up the regulations in these matters, as the hon.

Member will probably have seen. He will see from the Press statement which I have sent him that I have also invited the Press and the public to exercise their right to ask to see the certificates displayed in these vessels, and I hope that they will do so.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much concern about the qualifications of people who are skippers of these craft? Would he care to make a statement as to the qualifications which are demanded of them? If none are demanded, will my right hon. Friend introduce regulations to ensure that a sufficiently high standard of seamanship is demanded of skippers?

Mr. Jay: Certainly, that is a point that my officers are entitled to look into when granting certificates. But we had better await the report of the two special investigations which are now taking place before carrying the matter further.

Mr. Corfield: Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman already has power to ensure that these certificates are displayed? If not, does he propose to take that power?

Mr. Jay: Yes, it is the legal duty of those who receive these certificates to display them in the vessels which they use. The public have a right to ask to see them before making any use of the vessel, and I hope that they will.

Mr. Webster: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken to record certificates to cover the safety of passenger vessels carrying more than twelve people.

Mr. Jay: Copies of all passenger certificates are retained by the Board.

Mr. Webster: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that a registry, either locally or centrally kept, would be of very great help to make sure that this scrutiny of the 1964 Act is enforced? Will he do something about this?

Mr. Jay: Copies of these certificates are already available to the police, to local authorities and to other people concerned, but I will certainly examine the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Farr: Would it not be desirable for the certificate in question to be displayed in a prominent place—say, at


the top of the companionway or a bulkhead—so that it is visible to all passengers coming aboard?

Mr. Jay: It is the duty of the master of the ship to display it in a prominent place where it can be seen by passengers.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken to ensure that passengers in vessels proceeding to sea have their attention drawn to the fact that the provisions of Section 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1964, have been complied with when necessary.

Mr. Jay: Owners are required by statute to exhibit passenger certificates on board ship in a conspicuous place.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the Answers that the Minister has given to previous Questions, will he consider having a standard form of badge which is easily recognisable, such as a motorist uses for a licence on his car?

Mr. Jay: I will examine that point, but I think the instructions we have made go a long way to meet the need.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement made this afternoon will be widely welcomed by people everywhere, but may I ask him this, that provided the certificates are displayed and provided that the boats are seaworthy and properly skippered, passengers need have no fear in using pleasure vessels?

Mr. Jay: I think that, so far as the law laid down by this House is concerned, that is certainly true, but I cannot give an absolute guarantee of what may happen.

Japanese Wireless Transmitters

Mr. Rhodes: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will prohibit the importation of miniature frequency modulation wireless transmitters from Japan.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this type of equipment—and there is evidence to support this—can be used both for industrial espionage and for personal blackmail? In view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the

Postmaster-General yesterday, in a Written Answer to me, said that he would not grant a licence to users of this equipment and that users could be prosecuted if they used it, would it not be desirable to prevent it from coming into our markets?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly examine that point, but as the matter stands there is, I think, nothing illegal at present about importing such articles.

Semi-Development Areas

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to create a category of semi-development areas, enjoying advantages less than those of development areas but greater than those of the rest of the country.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) on 4th August and to my speech in the House on 2nd August.

Mr. Blaker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some parts of the country outside development areas need help more than others? Does he not agree that for those areas it is not enough to say that there will be an easy policy of granting industrial development certificates but that it is also a question of the rate of investment grant? Would not the President consider establishing a category of areas which were entitled to grant at, say, 30 per cent.?

Mr. Jay: I think that we can solve this problem adequately by a reasonably flexible use of the industrial development certificates. We use these certificates in a much more discriminating way than seems to be generally realised. Now that we have greatly widened the development areas, I think that that is the proper way to meet the problem.

Mr. Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree also that particularly because of the willingness of people to travel further to work, boundaries of development areas are bound to be artificial and that if one falls on the wrong side of the boundary one can suffer, as in my county of Monmouth? This adds substance to the complaint by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker).

Mr. Jay: Yes, but as long as we pursue a policy which discriminates geographically, we are bound to have boundaries.

Boeing 747 Aircraft (Noise)

Mr. Worsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the noise of a Boeing 747 in comparison with types of aircraft in common use today.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies on this subject given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation on 27th April.

Mr. Worsley: Can the right hon. Gentleman be specific as to whether there is any likelihood of an increase in noise as a result of these new aircraft? Is he aware that the level of noise in Central London has been steadily increasing and is now a major nuisance?

Mr. Jay: I entirely agree that this is a very serious problem. As far as these particular new aircraft are concerned, we have made it perfectly clear to the operators—that is, B.O.A.C—that there will have to be no greater noise than that which is tolerated at present with existing aircraft.

British Travel Association (Market Research)

Mr. Allason: asked the President of the Board of Trade what information he has as to the total amount spent by the British Travel Association on market research; towhich market research organisations the work was contracted; and what were the amounts of such expenditure in the years 1963–64, 1964–65 and 1965–66.

Mr. Jay: The total amount spent on market research over the Association's 16-year life is not readily ascertainable; nor would it be in accordance with practice to name the outside organisations to which parts of the research work were contracted. The total expenditures on research in 1963–64 and the two succeeding years were, respectively, £28,250, £53,000 and £47,650.

Mr. Allason: As there is a considerable Government grant to this body, should not the Minister be interested in

the way that it is spent? Is he satisfied that there is a tendering system in the award of contracts?

Mr. Jay: I agree that research by these bodies is extremely important. We are discussing it with them now. I think it is perfectly possible that there can be improvements.

Concentrated Protein

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will draw to the attention of the trade commissioners in developing countries which lack protein the British invention, details of which have been sent to him, whereby highly concentrated protein for human consumption can be extracted and stored from purely vegetable matter.

Mr. Jay: I believe that information on this British invention was disseminated through British Embassies and High Commissions overseas some years ago. Those concerned with the sale of the British process should contact my Department for further assistance.

Mr. Tilney: Is the President aware of the advances from America to use this invention under licence so that British products and know-how may well be squeezed out?

Mr. Jay: I was not aware of that, but if those concerned would like to contact my Department I shall be very glad to do what I can to help.

Blyth Shipyard

Dame Irene Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to maintain the Blyth Shipyard similar to those taken to protect the productive capacity of Fairfields in Scotland.

Mr. Jay: The position of these two shipyards is very different and I do not consider that Government intervention would be justified in this case.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Blyth Shipyard closure has caused great consternation to those on Tyneside, is it not possible to do on the Tyne what it is possible to do on the Clyde? Does it matter that the two yards are vastly different if both are producing a


great deal of employment? I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is going to allow unemployment in shipbuilding to develop on the Tyne, having regard to our past.

Mr. Jay: Of course, when we acted to save the Fairfield Yard we were violently opposed by the hon. Lady's Front Bench opposite.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not care about that either.

Mr. Jay: I rather thought that would be the response. However, there really is a major difference, in that the Fairfield Yard was a major yard with a large modern plant and with a large number of orders, and the circumstances in this case, although I very much regret the closure, really are different.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Bournemouth College of Technology

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the fact that the Bournemouth College of Technology meets all the criteria set out in Command Paper No. 3006, he will now include Bournemouth in the list of colleges designated as polytechnics.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): No polytechnics have yet been designated. My right hon. Friend's preliminary proposals, set out in the Appendix to Cmnd. 3006, are being considered by the Regional Advisory Councils for Further Education whose views he will be considering carefully before he invites any local education authority to formulate a scheme for the establishment of a polytechnic.

Sir J. Eden: Would the hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the opportunities offered for further education by the Bournemouth College of Technology and Art, particularly bearing in mind, in view of the fact that it has recently received planning consent, that it is likely to be the only college in the area capable of developing along the lines set out in the Command Paper?

Mr. Roberts: Bournemouth College of Technology has indeed an excellent record and provides excellent tuition and

practice at many levels. Bournemouth Education Authority has informed us that it is putting forward, through the regional advisory council, a strong case for the designation of this college, and we shall most certainly very carefully consider what the authority puts forward.

Swimming

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provisions he has or plans for encouragement of the science and art of swimming, in view of the Girl Guides' relay swim across the English Channel.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As the answer to my hon. and learned Friend on 29th April, 1965, indicated, there is in the schools great interest in the teaching of swimming, and there has been a considerable increase in the number of school swimming pools. In addition, members of the Sports Council and officers of the Department have met representatives of the Amateur Swimming Association and the Welsh Amateur Swimming Association to discuss informally the long-term development of their sport. The Amateur Swimming Association has for many years received a grant. In 1965 a grant was made for the first time to the English Schools Swimming Association.

Mr. Hughes: Bearing in mind the facts stated in my Question, will the Minister organise an international festival to vindicate and honour Britain's splendid achievements in the art of swimming and in field sports?

Mr. Roberts: It is certainly a most interesting suggestion. I am prepared to look at it.

Pre-School Play Groups

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to include preschool play groups among his Department's functions.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My right hon. Friend cannot consider whether any change in the existing law is desirable until he has received the reports of the Central Advisory Councils for Education.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, in the absence of nursery


schools and nursery classes, pre-school groups should be encouraged and that his Department has a special responsibility along these lines?

Mr. Roberts: We have already sent to local education authorities Circular 8/60, a copy of which, if the hon. Member wishes, I will send to him, and we have already sent out two addenda which bring this matter a bit more forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER FOR TOURISM

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister for Tourism.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the United Nations is thinking of designating 1967 as international tourist year? Does he believe that there is no prospect of restoring the savage cut in travel allowance during this international tourist year? How long does he expect to have to continue his West of Margate policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly, the United Nations are acting, as the hon. Member has said, but, of course, we do not need a Minister for Tourism because this is one of the responsibilities of the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State and the British Travel and Holidays Association. So far as the tourist allowance is concerned, the amount allowed is considerably above the average which has been taken in recent years.

Mr. Heath: Is it not true that the Minister of State at the Board of Trade is Minister for Tourism, unless the Prime Minister has changed the previous arrangements which held for some time? Would he not agree that the present sort of measures, such as the Selective Employment Tax, which puts another £20 million burden on the British hotel industry, make it much less attractive to tourists and that, of course, the provision the Prime Minister made for a loan of £5 million in no way offsets that?

The Prime Minister: It has always been the position, right from the days when the Secretary of State for Overseas Trade was dealing with these matters, that he is the Minister who has responsibility for

tourist matters, but, so far as the Selective Employment Tax is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House had adequate time to debate and it is now the decision of the House.

Mr. Heath: The fact that the House has debated it does not alter the fact that the hotel industry, providing for tourists and attracting overseas tourists to this country, is being badly damaged by the additional burden of £20 million.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware from his own experience at the Board of Trade that not all the hotels add to this £20 million. In fact, only a relatively small proportion cater for overseas tourists, and they will be helped by the announcement I made on 20th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that he will not grant independence to Rhodesia so long as the government of that country remains under the control of a white minority; and whether he will permit the illegal régime to negotiate the future constitutional basis upon which there will be a return to constitutional government.

The Prime Minister: As I have repeatedly made clear, independence will not be granted to Rhodesia except on a basis which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole; and negotiations for a settlement must take place with a constitutional government in Rhodesia.

Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the five principles, drafted, as they were, before U.D.I., and as an attempt to avert U.D.I., are vague and imprecise, and can he say whether he still stands by the letter he wrote to Dr. Mutasa on 2nd October, 1964, stating that the Labour Party is totally opposed to granting independence to Rhodesia so long as the Government of that country remained under the control of a white minority?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have answered many questions on the letter to Dr. Mutasa, and I have since met Dr. Mutasa in Rhodesia and discussed this question with him. The position of


Her Majesty's Government is exactly as stated—and repeatedly stated—in the White Paper on the Rhodesian negotiations, and although the five principles may be in general terms, the whole purpose of our discussions before U.D.I. and of the present talks is to see that they are very categorically defined and agreed.

Mr. Winnick: Would not the Prime Minister agree that South Africa is playing a very sinister rôle in helping the illegal régime in Rhodesia to defeat the policy of sanctions, and can the Prime Minister tell us what action he proposes to take by way of talks to prevent the South African régime in this sinister rôle they play?

The Prime Minister: This does not arise out of the Question, so far as I can see. We have debated the position of South Africa, and while it is certainly true that South Africa has not accepted the principle of boycott, it is not making emergency arrangements, to help Rhodesia and is allowing only normal trade to continue.

Mr. Evelyn King: Whatever alternative to the Rhodesian policy may exist, in so far as the policy of sanctions is directed to influencing European opinion in Africa, is it not clear that it has now totally failed? It is not influencing them. But is costing the British balance of payments something of the order of £100 million a year. How long are we to continue a policy which is both failing and expensive?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that long supplementary questions leave less time for others.

The Prime Minister: The enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) for dealing with the Rhodesian problem has never been very well marked, and I have no doubt that he would like to feel that the sanctions policy has failed. It has not up to this time led the European electorate to cause any constitutional changes, but it is having a very deep effect on the economy and on the illegal régime.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, he may like to take a little time in the Recess to work out what would be the effect on our balance of payments—which has been affected, of course, by

the higher copper prices—if we were to try to sell out to the illegal régime, an action which would be unacceptable to the rest of Africa.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister whether there will be a period of direct British rule in Rhodesia following the ending of the present illegal régime.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 25th January last, and to the Answer I gave on 8th August to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on that section of the Lagos communiqué which referred to the Prime Ministers' accepting Her Majesty's Government's statements that a period of direct rule would be needed? How long does he envisage that this period would last, and to what purpose would it be put?

The Prime Minister: I stated this fully in my statement to the House on 25th January last after the conference. I said that it would never be intended to have direct rule from Westminster and that what we had in mind was rule by the Governor. I said that it might be minutes or hours, days or weeks, depending on how long it would take to negotiate an adequate settlement with a constitutional Government.

Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a period of direct rule would be valuable as a form of education and preparation of the people of Rhodesia, bearing in mind that the present racialist gangsters have denied the people a proper period of preparation?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I could best help towards a solution and a settlement by going further than I did on Monday when I stated that talks were being resumed. I expressed concern then about certain developments, Mr. Smith's speech and the treatment of the university, and it would not help towards a settlement if I were to go further.

Mr. Maudling: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the constant use of the phrase "direct rule" makes the


chances of an agreeable solution very much more remote?

The Prime Minister: In referring to what I said on 25th January, I pointed out that it was not intended to have direct rule from Whitehall. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that we could negotiate any settlement with the illegal régime and that there need not be a return to constitutional government under the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — AWARDS TO INDUSTRY

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister if he will make it a condition when awards to industry are presented to firms that all sections of workers who have contributed to the gaining of the award shall be represented at the presentation ceremony.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; but I know that most award winning firms are much concerned to do this.

Mrs. Short: In view of the cutting which I sent to my right hon. Friend indicating that in a certain firm board room junketings took place when an award was given without representation of the workers, will he consider directions to firms so that all levels of workers shall be absolutely committed to the need to increase productivity and raise exports?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that, where honours are involved, particularly, as in this case, a new and I believe much coveted award, it would be appropriate for the Government or anyone else to issue directions as to how such an award should be received. But I know that it is the practice of a very large number of firms which receive the award to take every opportunity of bringing in those who did the job on the factory floor to join in whatever celebrations are held.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will re-define the duties of the Paymaster-General.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to previous Answers on this Question.

Mr. Marten: As the implications of the previous Answers were that the Prime Minister should be kept well informed about security matters, can he tell us whether the temporary secretary, Miss Wells, employed at No. 10 Downing Street, was positively vetted beforehand? If so——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Security Questions are not allowed on the Order Paper, and I do not think that they should be allowed in supplementary questions.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the slur made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), may I be allowed to reply?

Mr. Speaker: Since the question has been asked, yes.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who spends most of his time snooping on this kind of question, gave a statement to the Press. I wish now to give the facts. This lady was sent for a few days as a replacement for a sick secretary and acted part-time as secretary to my wife. She was employed on exactly the same terms as have always been the case at Downing Street, although we have in fact greatly tightened up the security provisions in the recruitment even of temporary staff as compared with the position under our predecessors.
It was when she was asked to type a stock letter on Vietnam and began to query the text that one of my secretaries threw doubt on her position when she was replaced and returned to the place from which she had come. There has been the fullest vetting of anyone who has anything to do with security work. This lady had no access to any security work, and I repeat that the rules are tighter than in the time of the Government of which the hon. Member was a member.

Sir D. Renton: Does that mean that there is or is not positive security vetting of all those employed at No. 10 Downing Street If not, why not?

The Prime Minister: It is not usual to give details of the methods of vetting, but I can say that everything done before in respect of every member of the Downing Street staff is still done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Everything done


under my predecessor is still done. In his time, the rule was that temporaries engaged on official work were brought in without vetting at all. We stopped that and have been vetting all people who come to work at Downing Street, even those who come to deal with purely political or constituency work. I can certainly tell the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that the conditions are much tighter.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, does not the Prime Minister's reply entitle me to raise this question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not question my ruling.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has, following his discussions with President Johnson about the state of the British economy, to hold similar discussions with the Heads of Government of the Common Market countries.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. There are regular opportunities for Ministerial and official exchanges with the Governments of the Six about our respective economic problems.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the position of the dollar, that at present the United States is not in a position to retain the safety net under the pound single-handed? Would he further agree that it is important that the Governments of Western Europe should be brought in on these consultations and that it cannot very well be left to the delicate handling of the Foreign Secretary?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the dollar holds a safety net under the pound. That is an inaccurate way of putting it. The pound and the dollar have both been under recent attack and must work together as far as possible. There is no question of the dollar putting a safety net under the pound and the hon. Gentleman's questions are not particularly helpful.
As for consultations with European countries, and not only the Common Market countries, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the recent conference at The Hague, Finance Ministers of the Group of Ten and central bankers had full discussion of all our mutual problems and strongly expressed support of the Government's action and confidence that it will be successful.

Mr. Farr: During the Prime Minister's discussions with President Johnson, was the question of Gibraltar raised at all?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir—not at all.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the Opposition, we on this side of the House believe in the sovereignty of the British Government and are not over-anxious to tie ourselves to the shoe laces of Germany, France or anyone else?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that that is the position of my hon. Friend, as it is the position of the Government. It is a more robust attitude than that of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who think that they will solve our problems by points of order or debates on the adjournment on issues on which they showed such little robustness—I am thinking particularly of Spain—when they were in Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL OFFICE AND COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (AMALGAMATION)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister what economies in Ministerial salaries will result from the amalgamation of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office.

The Prime Minister: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 8th August, I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 10th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Onslow: Is the Prime Minister not aware that some saving should have been made as soon as the Colonial Secretary became an item of Government surplus stock? How long is it likely to take the


Prime Minister to realise that his whole Front Bench is grossly overblown and overpaid even for the sort of black farce which he has been putting on since he came into power?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has had his bit of fun, and for that kind of invective he has been more effective than his own Front Bench. As for his question, I would have thought that he would take a deep interest in Commonwealth problems and would feel that there are still so many problems in connection with the movement to independence of Colonial territories, and at the same time some heavy questions within the self-governing Commonwealth that it is necessary to have two Ministers. There will be a saving when, following this amalgamation, the Minister responsible for the Colonial Office will in due course—although this will require legislation—become a Minister of State instead of a Secretary of State. Then there will be a financial saving.

ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, and in accordance with precedent, I would like to make a statement about the setting up of a Royal Commission.
As the House knows, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has for some time been considering the arrangements for the trial of civil actions outside London. But, as these arrangements necessarily affect criminal business too, the Government have now come to the conclusion that a far-reaching inquiry into the whole of the present system of assizes and quarter sessions is desirable.
Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve the recommendation that a Royal Commission should be appointed with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into the present arrangements for the administration of justice at assizes and at quarter sessions outside Greater London, and to report what reforms should be made for the more convenient economic and efficient disposal of the civil and criminal business at present dealt with by those courts.

I hope to announce the names of the chairman and other members of the Royal Commission after the Recess.

Mr. Heath: May I thank the Prime Minister for telling the House about the setting up of yet another Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this is in accordance with precedent and that it is my duty to inform the House. As for the sting in the tail of his supplementary question, I hope that he will realise that for a long time there has been a widespread demand in the legal profession, and even more widely, for a thorough inquiry into the question of assize courts, some of the rules of which have not changed since the 14th century. Since the right hon. Gentleman failed to modernise in this respect, I hope that he will not begrudge our doing so.

Mr. English: Will the terms of reference of the Commission be wide enough for it to be able to consider restrictive practices in the legal profession?

The Prime Minister: It is for the Royal Commission to construe its own terms of reference. I think that I can say with confidence that they are not drafted in a form to invite such a construction. I would not construe them in that way.

Mr. Doughty: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period of the last Government the Streatfeild Committee was set up and made recommendations, and that changes were made as a result. As for the composition of this Commission, will the Prime Minister see that it is staffed by people with experience of the work of assize and quarter sessions courts, and not by those with only outside experience?

The Prime Minister: In addition to the Streatfeild Committee, which reported in 1961, inquiries were made in 1867, 1908, 1913 and by the Peel Commission of 1936. It is now time that something was done. The Streatfeild Committee was not concerned with the fundamental alteration of the assize system—under which 61 assize towns have to be visited by judges at least twice a year. Some are very small and away from the main centres of population. It is about time this was dealt


with and it would be more satisfactory for those authorities if it were done by an independent Royal Commission.

Mr. John Lee: I thank my right hon. Friend for this announcement, which will be widely welcomed. I realise that the Royal Commission must govern its own procedure, but does my right hon. Friend have any idea how long it will be before we get a report, in view of the urgent nature of the reforms which are to be recommended?

The Prime Minister: I cannot forecast how long it will take. The Royal Commission has a clearly defined task. One has to listen to local opinion on this matter, especially as some areas or towns will lose their assizes. Most people with experience of this will agree that it is profoundly unsatisfactory, very uneconomic and costly to the taxpayer and the ratepayer to run the system on the present basis.

Mr. Carlisle: Now that the Prime Minister has agreed that he was wrong in his previous answer when he said that no such inquiries had been made during the lifetime of the previous Government when, in fact, the Streatfeild Committee was set up to inquire into the urgent dispatch of criminal cases, will he assure the House that one recommendation of the Streatfeild Committee, namely, that there should be no further Crown courts, will not bind the Royal Commission in any way?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member now admits that the Streatfeild Committee did not deal to anything like the extent that the Royal Commission will deal with this problem, since it had very limited terms of reference. Now he does not feel that the Streatfeild Report, on the very important question of the extension of the Crown courts, was satisfactory. It will not bind the Royal Commission or any action taken by it. What he has said makes it more important to have this Royal Commission.

Mr. Archer: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Royal Commission will not consist entirely of members of the legal profession, but that some provision will be made for representing the consumer?

The Prime Minister: The Commission will certainly inquire into civil as well as criminal cases. There must be an adequate representation of the public interest in this matter, as well as the professionals engaged on this work. This will not just be an inquiry by the lawyers into the legal profession. I should think that it was not impossible for the chairman to be a non-lawyer.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister expect or hope that the Royal Commission will report in the lifetime of this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but I should inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that it will not be inquiring into Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that despite the frivolous attitude of the Leader of the Opposition—which, I hope, will be noted in the country—in addition to the economic aspect and the expenses aspect which have been mentioned, there is also the question of achieving justice? Will he see that the terms of reference which are to be considered will include this very important aspect and also make it clear that this is to be a genuine effort to put things straight, after the "phoney" efforts that we had from right hon. Members opposite when in power?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not consider the Leader of the Opposition to be frivolous, although it is nice to see him smile once in a while.
As for the terms of reference, in my original statement I have already set out the terms which will make possible the very thorough inquiry on which my hon. Friend is so determined.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Prime Minister refer the whole of Government policy to one of these bodies, which take minutes and waste years?

The Prime Minister: The Government could, of course, have taken their own decisions in this matter of assize courts—there is a body of information on the subject—but I should have thought that the whole House, even in a holiday mood, would feel that, since so many local interests are involved, and since we have to ensure that justice is available


quickly and, as far as possible, economically and efficiently in different parts of the country, it is better to have the matter impartially surveyed rather than done by the Government.

BRITISH NATIONAL EXPORT COUNCIL

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The British National Export Council was established for an initial period of three years in 1964, as a partnership between industry and Government for the purposes of stimulating the growth of our exports, and of bringing together under one central organisation the bodies concerned with the promotion of British exports to various parts of the world.
The Council was sponsored by the Federation of British Industries and the National Association of British Manufacturers—now merged in the Confederation of British Industry—the City of London, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Trades Union Congress. Its activities have been financed by funds raised from industry, business and commerce, matched by a contribution from the Government.
It has been represented to Her Majesty's Government that there would for practical reasons be advantage in deciding now whether the Council should continue in being after the expiry of the three-year period. The sponsoring organisations have all expressed a strong wish that it should continue, and this wish the Government fully share. The Government attach the highest importance to the work which the Council has so successfully begun and believe that there will be ample scope for promotion effort of this kind for many years to come.
I have, therefore, informed Lord McFadzean, under whose energetic leadership the Council has made so much progress, that the Government strongly endorse the need for the Council to continue its work after the end of the three-year period, and intend to continue financial support for its activities on the present basis of matching the contribution of industry, business and commerce.
I have also asked Lord McFadzean to convey to all members of the Council

and of its committees the Government's high appreciation of the time and energy which they voluntarily give to this vital work in support of our export trade.

Mr. Barber: After the deep divisions between the Government and the Opposition over the past few months, I am very pleased to be able to say that I entirely agree with and support all that the President of the Board of Trade has said. Is he aware that the British National Export Council, started by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and continued by the right hon. Gentleman, has the good wishes of the whole House and that we send our gratitude to those men of industry and commerce on the Council and the area committees who have so unstintingly given service and advice in the national interest?

Mr. Jay: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which, I think, is generally accepted.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to associate ourselves with what the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) has said? Would it be possible for the Government to increase the financial contribution made to the Council, in view of the considerable importance of its work?

Mr. Jay: We believe that the present principle of matching the finance privately raised with that provided by the Government is right and that there should continue to be contributions from both sources.

Dame Irene Ward: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in conveying all these congratulations to Lord McFadzean he might tell him that even the Council would be improved if there were some suitable women at top level on it?

Mr. Jay: I am sure that Lord McFadzean will give due attention to what the hon. Lady said.

Mr. Ogden: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if the Council asked for more financial aid, such a request would be sympathetically considered? Would he bear in mind that we should balance the export drive with a "Buy British" drive?

Mr. Jay: I agree with my hon. Friend. We will, of course, consider sympathetically any suggestions which we receive from the Council.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision, which I am sure is right, is particularly gratifying from him, in view of the continuous carping criticism with which the appointment of this body was greeted by the present Prime Minister, by himself and by some of his right hon. Friends, when it was first set up?

Mr. Jay: I am also interested to recall that it was the right hon. Gentleman who set up the Council, in view of what he said earlier about the setting up of a Royal Commission.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the rather peculiar attitude and behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon due to what happened when he arrived at the Dorchester Hotel last night?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that arises on this statement.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER) AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn until Tuesday 18th October, and that To-morrow the following paragraphs shall have effect—

(1) paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), as applied by paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 3 (Friday Sittings) shall not have effect; and Proceedings on Government business may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed;
(2) Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses;
(3) when the Proceedings on any substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall have continued for a period of five and a half hours (without reckoning the time occupied by any intervening Proceedings), then—

(a) if Mr. Speaker shall already have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid, he shall forthwith adjourn the House without putting any Question; and
(b) if Mr. Speaker shall not so have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid he shall forthwith suspend the sitting until a Message is received from the Lords, or until a Message is delivered desiring the attendance of this House in the House of Peers for the purpose of hearing a Commission read for signifying the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid; and, as soon as he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid, he shall forthwith adjourn the House without putting any Question:

Provided that sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall also apply if such a Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall have been withdrawn.
On this occasion, I should have preferred to move this Motion formally and to answer points raised in the debate at the end, but it is such a complicated Motion that I think that it would be convenient if I gave a very brief explanation of what it means.
It means, first, that we propose to adjourn the House until 18th October; second, that we propose to enable any Lords Amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill to be dealt with whenever they are received; third, that we propose to ensure that the Royal Assent to the Prices and Incomes Bill is given before the House rises; finally, and most important, it is designed to ensure that there shall


be no inroad into the normal five and a half hours for discussion which private Members expect to have on such an occasion.
These are the essential four parts of the Motion.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: Mr. Edward Heath (Bexley) rose——

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: On a point of order. Would my right hon. Friend accept from me for the record the thanks of the House generally to the staff of the Catering Department, who have done such a marvellous job here in very difficult circumstances? I feel that it would be appropriate to have that placed on record. Will he accept that from the House and have it placed on record, so that the staff may know that their work is appreciated?

Mr. Speaker: This is not exactly a point of order, but I think that it commands the wholehearted support of the whole House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heath: I am sure that the House will agree with what the hon. Lady has said. Credit is due to her, as Chairman of the Committee concerned, for the part which she has played, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that her remarks are passed on.
I should like to welcome the new Leader of the House to his new position. It has enabled him to shoot from No. 14 to No. 4, in the hierarchy of which he is a part, but he would be the first to agree, I am sure, that that is an insignificant factor compared with the great honour which has now come to him of leading the House. I would congratulate him on the eloquent way in which he read the piece of paper provided for him by the Chief Whip. We are all interested, though not necessarily reassured, to see that the Paymaster-General is solidly by his side as his adviser on Parliamentary procedure.
I hope that we shall have a reply to the debate from the right hon. Gentleman, with the leave of the House, which I am sure he will receive in due course. I noticed with great interest yesterday, on the business statement, that the then Leader of the House gave an undertaking

that every single point which was raised in this debate would be answered at the end of it. I must say that I heard this with some astonishment. It has never happened with this Government before—and I see now that it was an undertaking given by a man who knew full well that he himself would never have to honour it.
The House is being asked to agree to this Motion. Seldom has it been asked to fix the date of its rising in such a state of uncertainty, seldom with so many matters outstanding and seldom with so many problems unsolved. I must ask the Leader of the House for answers to some questions, and no doubt right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will wish to ask similar questions and also will seek assurances on other matters before they feel that the House should accept the Motion.
Looking at it from the other point of view, although the Leader of the House did not go into these matters it is obvious why the Government want the Motion to be passed. The plain fact is that here we are in the middle of August already, kept sitting here by the mismanagement of business by the last Leader of the House and by the general incompetence of the Government in handling their business. It seems an absurd position for a Government which was returned only four and a half months ago, with a majority of 100, not to be able to manage their affairs in a way which is customary in the House. Never before have a Government so panted for the haven of a holiday as do the present Government. Never before have a Government been so desperate to get away from their obligations to Parliament. But then, of course, never before have a Government been so discredited in so short a time as have the present Administration.
Never before have an Administration, within four and a half months of a General Election, seen all their policies fail—and, what is more, right hon. Gentlemen come to the Government Dispatch Box and openly admit that they have failed. On the incomes policy, the right hon. Gentleman the former First Secretary, in the course of many eloquent speeches on the Prices and Incomes Bill, has constantly reiterated that his policy has failed. He wants us all to know it. The housing policy has failed. No one knows that better than the Leader of the


House. He has got out from under it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The National Plan has now to be rewritten. In Rhodesia, the Government's policy has failed. Every prophecy which the Prime Minister made about the timing of the Rhodesian policy has been proved to be absolutely wrong. The Government's policy on Europe has failed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I will tell the procedural advisers that these are all reasons why the Government want the Motion passed. As the Leader of the House is incapable of putting them himself, I am putting them for him.
All this has happened within four and a half months of the General Election. Never before, in such a short time, have a Government broken all their promises. That is one reason why they want to get away. They said that there would be no stop-go. That was their major promise. What have we got? A complete stop. There is no "go" in sight anywhere. The Prime Minister has been anxious to tell us that. The Government promised no unemployment, and now the Prime Minister says that, after all the redeployment there will be a permanent level of unemployment of 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent., up to 470,000. That is the policy to which the Government have committed themselves.
What of the 400,000 houses? That promise has been broken. It ought to be 420,000 houses in order to reach the target of half a million.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—I shall stay here all day if hon. Members keep up that noise.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. William Hamilton: Get back to the kindergarten.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, may I be given protection from the back-yard opposite and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a way of fighting Parliamentary battles, and noise is not a part of it.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The rules of procedure on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess are governed by the debate on 14th May,

1964, in which I took part. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, then ruled quite definitely that it was not in order to raise matters of detail. It is my submission that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has been doing that since he began his speech. May we take it that the House will be governed by the rules of procedure of 14th May, 1964—which I must confess at the time I thought had been devised specially for my benefit? I should like to think that they have wider application and that they apply also to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that debates on the Motion for the Adjournment are governed by more than the rules as applied in the single debate of 14th May, 1964, which I have read, together with all similar debates. It is in the hands of Mr. Speaker to decide whether or not a speech is in order. It is in order for an hon. or right hon. Gentleman to argue the reasons why he thinks that the House should adjourn or should not adjourn, should adjourn for the time for which it is proposed that it should adjourn, or should adjourn for a shorter time.
The right hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is right in saying that anyone who speaks in the debate must not go into detail. The judgment about whether an hon. or right hon. Gentleman is going into detail is a matter for Mr. Speaker. If I find the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or other hon. Members straying beyond the bounds of order, I shall deal with the matter.

Mr. Wigg: May I express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker—and I am sure that the House, too, is grateful—for restating the position for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling.
I think that a situation has now arisen in which the Chief Whip must send for the Prime Minister. Last night, at one minute past ten o'clock, we read an announcement that the Prime Minister had made the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) Leader of the House. When we read it, many of us thought that it was a hoax—because some of us were living in that atmosphere. Now, within 10 minutes


of the debate starting, we find that it was a hoax and that the Paymaster-General is the new Leader of the House. The only person who can settle this is the Prime Minister and he is now beating it hell for leather for the Scillies. But no doubt we can settle it later.
The final reason why the Government want this Motion is that never before have any Government put up such a ghastly performance as the present Administration have put up in the last four and a half months. We had the Budget misjudgment—again, openly admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at that Box. He stood there and said, "I agree that I was completely wrong". He goes on producing more freeze and more squeeze, culminating in what we realise, looking back, is the worst economic crisis since 1931.
Overseas, we have had the abortive Moscow visit. I will not go into detail for the Paymaster-General. We had that lost week-end when our life blood was draining away. We have had the squalid abandonment of the United States policy in Vietnam and that near-disastrous French visit which has killed any mutterings there were—half-hearted though they were—about our moving towards the European Economic Community.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Who wrote the right hon. Gentleman's speech?

Mr. Heath: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech.

Mr. Shinwell: I have no speech writer.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will see that this speech is in my own handwriting.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. None of this helps the debate.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry. I could not help it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology. It seems that I must prevent the House from being too happy.

Mr. Heath: I pay a sincere tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Shinwell: Oh, what is this?

Mr. Heath: No member of the party opposite has done more, or more consistently, to try to come to the aid of his Leader and his party than the right hon. Gentleman, and never was aid more greatly needed than now.
Another reason why the Government want the Motion is that never has a party been so divided within itself over the great issues of the day, over Vietnam, over Europe and, above all, over the incomes policy. On every major Division on the Prices and Incomes Bill there were about 30 absentions, 30 hon. Members opposite who wanted to kill the Bill and who could have done so if, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) so often urged on other hon. Members, they had had the "guts" to vote against it when they had the opportunity.
It was in view of all these reasons for trying to get rid of the House by this Motion that the Prime Minister last night produced his sudden, panic changes in the Administration. We had a shuffle last January. We had a shuffle last April. We have a shuffle in August. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman promised the Press another shuffle in October. When this Parliament met first, he promised us an annual shuffle. Now, we are having quarterly shuffles. Outside, this has been described as musical chairs. That is an insult to the game. When the Prime Minister plays it, there is always a chair for everyone.
In view of the situation in which he wants us to part, I must ask the Leader of the House for certain assurances. First, the general one, on which he has, no doubt, been briefed: will the Government be prepared, under Standing Order No. 117, to approach Mr. Speaker on a matter of public interest or when the public interest requires it, particularly, of course, on any major events while the House is in Adjournment, and will he listen to representations from Her Majesty's Opposition in cases on which they believe that the House ought to be recalled? I hope that he will be able to give that first assurance.
Second, I want the Leader of the House to give an assurance about our economic affairs. Despite all the Government's measures, the situation remains critical. The £ today is once again below


2·79. The trade figures are bad. What is the Government's intention now regarding Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill, should it be passed by Parliament before we rise? The First Secretary of State made clear last night that he wanted to pursue an inflationary policy still and to control it through Part IV of the Bill by authoritative means. When I heard that speech I was astonished that the First Secretary could stand at the Box, with the Chancellor next to him, publicly pursuing an entirely opposite policy. Of course, I realise now that it was made by a man who knew that at the most he had only another half hour in the job and he would never have to carry through all the things he was relating in that last speech.
If there is to be an inflationary policy such as we heard described last night, when will the Government implement Part IV of the Bill? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, if an affirmative Order is laid by the Government to introduce Part IV, the House will be recalled at once and that he will not leave it till towards the end of the 28 days allowed for an affirmative Order before recalling the House? It is of great importance that we have an opportunity to discuss the economic situation in which the Government find it necessary to implement Part IV and that it be not left till the last moment.
The third assurance I want is about housing. If I may say it to the right hon. Gentleman as confidentially as one can on the Floor of the House, the last Minister of Housing and Local Government was a man who broke every promise he ever made to the electorate and entirely failed to carry out his obligations to the House of Commons. What is more, the last Leader of the House had absolutely no control over the Minister of Housing and could not, therefore, keep him to his obligations. On 19th July, the last Minister of Housing promised to make a statement to the House before the Recess about the mortgage option scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman has still not done so. On 9th August he said that it did not matter—he had made a statement to the builders whom he had met on 2nd August—thus showing that he cares nothing whatever for the House of Commons and treats it with contempt.

Will the present Leader of the House try to remedy that situation and speak seriously to the new Minister of Housing about it, and, before he does that, carry out this afternoon the obligation, which he gave personally, to make a statement to the House about the mortgage option scheme?
The fourth undertaking we want is on Rhodesia. The Prime Minister gave undertakings last Monday that he would recall the House in the case of a settlement or a breakdown of negotiations or a change of Government policy. He was particularly pressed about the use of force or any question of abdicating British responsibilities to the United Nations, where, of course, the Government have use of the veto. Will the Leader of the House kindly confirm those undertakings about recall of the House on the Rhodesia question?
The fifth undertaking I ask for is about Gibraltar. I ask the Leader of the House, as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have asked the previous Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, for a clear assurance that there will be no diminution in sovereignty over Gibraltar, no agreement to diminish sovereignty over Gibraltar, without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar. The House cannot understand why the Government refuse to give such an assurance. The hon. Gentleman refused to give it this afternoon. Commentators on this question, the Press and its leader writers, cannot understand why the Government refuse to give the assurance.
In the White Paper on Gibraltar, published last year, it was stated:
The policy of Her Majesty's Government is clear. Great Britain has at no time renounced her title to Gibraltar or failed to defend her position there and will not do so now.
Why cannot the Leader of the House, or, for that matter, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, say quite clearly that they stand by that undertaking and they will not make any agreement to reduce British sovereignty over Gibraltar without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Government are in negotiations. This we fully understand. Having been at the Foreign Office myself for three years, I realise, as some others did not when I


was negotiating, what the difficulties are. But the Spanish Government have set out their position quite plainly. They lay claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar. Why cannot the British Government now state their position clearly, that they will not see sovereignty over Gibraltar diminished without the consent of the people of Gibraltar? It may be said that this is a concern of the United Nations as well, but the United Nations is concerned with the wishes of the people of the territory involved, so I see absolutely no difficulty in the way of the Leader of the House giving the undertaking.
It is important that the undertaking be given because, unless it is given, misinterpretations will be put upon the position of the Government, and these can be very damaging, damaging in Gibraltar and damaging in the negotiations themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the last Foreign Secretary gave the House an assurance that the representatives of the people of Gibraltar were satisfied with the negotiations. A remark like that, coming from the last Foreign Secretary, immediately sends shivers down one's spine. He said that the representatives of the Federation of South Arabia were satisfied with negotiations which the Government had conducted, but that statement was immediately repudiated by the representatives of the Federation of South Arabia. So I must ask the Leader of the House now—the country expects it and the people of Gibraltar expect it—for a perfectly clear assurance in the words I have used, which, in fact, are laid down in the Government's own White Paper.
I have asked for those five assurances, which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the House so that he may get his Motion through, but, of course, it must be recognised that even these undertakings will come from a discredited Government whom last night's changes certainly cannot save. What the Prime Minister has done is to compound failure with failure.
The First Secretary's incomes policy has failed, and so he is moved on to be Foreign Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman has said all this."] I shall say something else, too, We all know that this was the prize

that the Prime Minister had to offer to prevent his Government being broken up on 20th July.
The last Foreign Secretary failed. There was not one constructive initiative throughout the time that he was at the Foreign Office. He was a creature of No. 10 and the butt of his party. Now he has been shifted, much to the pleasure of hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. It is the third office that the right hon. Gentleman has held in 21 months. They are all coming up now for the third time in the Labour Party. The only difference this time is that the Foreign Secretary goes from being the Prime Minister's cipher to being the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rubber stamp.
The last Leader of the House failed—failed to deal with the business of the House. Now he is moved to deal with Rhodesia, where, no doubt, his well known rigidity will impair any possibility of movement whatsoever. The Commonwealth Secretary failed—failed to prevent U.D.I., and failed to secure any settlement afterwards. He has been moved to the Ministry of Overseas Development, where there is less and less to do and less and less to spend——

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman not infringing the rules of the House, first, by tedious repetition, and, secondly, according to your Ruling earlier today, by going into detail?

Mr. Speaker: One of the last things the Speaker ever wants to have to rule on is tedious repetition. If the right hon. Gentleman goes into too much detail the Chair will call him to order.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has written a new chapter in Erskine May—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or, at least, you have given a slightly different interpretation from that of your illustrious predecessor on 18th May, 1964, can the House take it that the new doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman applies to my hon. Friends, who may wish to raise some subjects and treat them in a way which, on previous occasions, they have been debarred from doing?

Captain Walter Elliot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House think that my right hon. Friend is not going into enough detail? Could he not go into more detail?

Mr. Wigg: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot); I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone into enough detail. Therefore, I hope that some of my hon. Friends will endeavour to go into the detail that I tried to go into on 18th May, 1964, and that they will inquire into the detail about which the Opposition Front Bench always remains very quiet—the detail about Suez. As long as that is possible——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. The Chair will continue to rule what is in order along the lines of the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and all other similar precedents, and if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen go into unnecessary detail, they will, despite the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman to them to do so, be ruled out of order.

Mr. Heath: I was just warning the House that if, as a result of accepting the assurances that we may be given by the right hon. Gentleman, we give the Government this Motion today, we shall still have our doubts about the assurances because of the discredited nature of so many of the Ministers, and, in particular, because they have failed. [Interruption.] Obviously, the Paymaster-General just cannot take it.
I must round it up by coming to the Leader of the House himself. Anybody less likely to get the confidence of all sections of the House, whose interests he is there to look after, it is difficult to imagine. He is just about the most political animal on the Government side of the House, barring the Paymaster-General. In fact, when we ask for these assurances, and want to put our faith in them, what is the position? There are some people who thought that after the General Election, and perhaps some who thought that after the first shuffle, the Administration would devote themselves seriously to the business of

government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not."] No; to be perfectly fair, I did not. But they must all now, especially after last night, be disillusioned.
What is the fact? It is that the Government are in future to be run by a triumvirate consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Paymaster-General, who are just about the slickest three political tricksters in the whole business.
The last assurance that I have asked for concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is interesting to note that he was the one man who publicly announced that he wanted to move, but he is the one man who has been told firmly to stay put. I gave him very good advice about it at the time. I stated from the Dispatch Box that it was being said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling his friends that he wanted to move. But I warned him that if he was doing that he ought also to tell his enemies, like the Prime Minister. But he did not, and now he is left in the hot seat, responsible for deflation, stagnation, declining investment and everything else, for which he will be blamed, and then, finally, he will be shifted.
I say to the Leader of the House that this is a tired, discredited Government. We cannot rise until we have been given the assurances for which I have asked. Better still, the Government should rise and get out.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise that it is impossible for me to indicate who has caught my eye. Mr. Mendelson.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Seeing that this is a serious occasion, and that we are about to debate a Motion in which we are asked to adjourn the House for a very considerable period, I should like to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House a number of important and urgent points on which the House needs assurances before passing the Motion.
Before doing that, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his new appointment and express my confidence that, with his knowledge of


Parliament, and looking at the writings for which he has been responsible on this subject, and his understanding of political democracy, he will be a good Leader of the House and will continue to give ideas to many people, as he has done in the past in many different ways, on Parliamentary reform.
I could not help feeling, when we were listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, that this was one of those occasions when he had a speech that absolutely had to be made. He might have prepared it for a very different occasion. I also felt that there was one section of it that he probably wanted to deliver as an after-dinner speech last night, but he was unable to do so because he turned up with a false invitation.
It is not very far to move from a false invitation to a false prospectus. During his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to me and some of my hon. Friends and asked why we had not taken action that might have given him and his political friends an opportunity to form the Government. This is what I have in mind when I talk about a fraudulent prospectus, because if one thing has been revealed throughout the discussions in the past few weeks it is that the Opposition have a policy which they dare not properly reveal to create the kind of level of mass unemployment and pursue the policies pursued on similar occasions by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), and that there is no danger at all of anyone wanting to replace our Government by a Government with that kind of policy.
That is the feeling up and down the country. As recent Gallup polls have shown, whatever arguments there might be about the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the need for being quite clear about what happens during the adjournment of the House and in the autumn, the thing that stands out is that the political popularity of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has made no progress at all. In fact, according to some surveys it has gone down, but I wanted to be more generous than the right hon. Gentleman was in his speech.
The main burden of the argument which I wish to put to the House, and to which I would like my right hon. Friend to reply, concerns the period

ahead of us during which the House will not be in session and the threatening international situation which we all face.
As I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, I will put one urgent point to my right hon. Friend. It concerns the situation in South-East Asia where, just as we are about to adjourn, we are facing a new change of policy and a potentially dangerous international crisis in Vietnam. It arises, first of all, from an announcement by Marshal Ky, the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, that he thinks that the proper policy to be pursued is a very wide escalation of the war, an invasion of North Vietnam by South Vietnam and her allies—which is the way in which Marshal Ky formulates it, meaning primarily the United States—and the destruction of the Government of North Vietnam. That is the way in which Marshal Ky proposes to proceed in the next few weeks.
That is grave enough in itself, but, as has been pointed out in leading articles in The Guardian and the New York Times, we must not lightly dismiss statements made by the Prime Minister of South Vietnam. He is not perhaps very powerful in himself, and it is well known that his military effort depends entirely on the military forces of the United States. But, as both The Guardian and the New York Times point out, he has an uncanny way of predicting what is to be United States policy a few months later.
It was fully six months before the United States extended the war into North Vietnam by air attacks on that country that Marshal Ky demanded precisely that policy. At the time when the Premier of South Vietnam advocated bombing operations against North Vietnam, his view was dismissed as unimportant. But I submit that the present advocacy of an extension and escalation of the war by Marshal Ky may well become the accepted policy within the next six weeks. That is the burden of the argument which I wish to put to the Government.
We have even more reason to be deeply concerned, because that statement by Marshal Ky was taken great note of in America. I pray in aid an important expression of American opinion by a number of Congressmen in order to point to the urgency of the


situation and to urge the Government not to ignore the dangers which are building up in South-East Asia, because, through the play of alliances, we could be involved immediately if the war were to extend.
The policy now proposed by Marshal Ky is one which would bring American forces into direct confrontation with the forces of other major powers. If they were then to become involved with the United States, the United Kingdom, as one of the principal allies of the United States, would automatically become involved through the play of alliances. At that moment, it would be far too late to argue the case which I want to argue today. If it were to happen during the Recess, this House would have no opportunity of making its voice heard in what could be the last three or four days before catastrophe overtook us all.
Therefore, I want to call in aid an important statement of American opinion about how dangerous the situation is. On 29th July, after Marshal Ky had made his statement, mainly directed to the United States, a group of 48 members of the House of Representatives published a statement which has only been partly mentioned in our Press, but which deserves very careful scrutiny by Her Majesty's Government.
These 48 Congressmen—46 Democrats and two Republicans—had this to say in what was headed "Statement on Vietnam":
Recent statements by Premier Ky suggesting an invasion of North Vietnam and eventual war with China indicate he and other South Vietnamese Generals have ambitions that extend far beyond and contradict the limited aims stated by President Johnson in seeking self-determination for the Vietnamese people. The danger that the war will spread is increasing daily. Extension of the conflict may embroil the major powers of the world in a destructive and brutal confrontation that would shatter all hopes of world peace.
That is the view of those 48 Congressmen, and it forms the main basis of the argument which I am putting to the Government. It is true that the Congressmen go on to say:
Premier Ky's statements dramatise the necessity for the American Government to redirect its energies more forcefully in the pursuit of a peaceful political settlement of the war. The spiral of escalation now being advocated by General Ky must be opposed and new initiatives attempted for a negotiated settlement.

If, by misfortune, while the House is not sitting, some of the policies now advocated by Marshal Ky were officially to become accepted by the Government of the United States, and were then to become part of a joint policy, what policy would Her Majesty's Government adopt and what steps are they preparing to recall the House and to allow Parliament to express its opinion on the situation? We have even more reason to be concerned in the light of a statement made recently by Mr. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State in the United States Administration.
When I said a minute ago that I would like to know the Government's policy if the United States were to adopt Marshal Ky's statement, I was not merely talking academically and in theory, because a few days after Marshal Ky had advocated his policy publicly and a few days after the 48 Congressmen had published their statement, Mr. Rusk held a Press conference. I only wish to put one point to the Government about it, because, obviously, it is much more important to base my urgent call for a Government reply upon the reality of the position than upon my own point of view.
Mr. Rusk refused to dissociate the United States Government from Marshal Ky's statement. That represents an entirely new and highly dangerous development in United States policy. If the Government were to be faced during the Recess by a development of American policy beyond that implied in the statement made by Mr. Rusk at his Press conference, when he said in a general way that some military action into North Vietnam cannot be excluded, the effect of which was to give active support to the policy advocated by Marshal Ky, would they then make it quite clear that in no circumstances would the United Kingdom be associated with such a policy? It is essential that we have such an assurance before we consider passing the Motion. If such a policy were to develop it would be far too late for hon. Members to express their views, even if hurriedly recalled, because events would move on very fast indeed.
Beyond an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will dissociate themselves from any policy of further escalating the


war into North Vietnam, I want the further assurance that they will act on the policy proposed by these 48 Congressmen and to say to the United States Government, here and now, "Instead of following the dangerous advice of Marshal Ky, we must, because of the dangers inherent in this situation, reinforce our efforts to bring about a peaceful solution".
In fact, the proper reply for Her Majesty's Government to this refusal by Mr. Dean Rusk to dissociate the United States Administration from the policy advocated by Marshal Ky would be to give a serious warning to the United States that Britain is no longer prepared to accept responsibility for those dangerous policies. This must be said now, because it will not be possible to say it if such a policy were pursued and our major ally were to become involved in an international war. In such an event, the play of alliances would be too late to help.
We have an opportunity now to make our position clear and to support these 48 Congressmen in their efforts to call a halt to this war. I invite my right hon. Friend, in his first speech as Leader of the House, to speak out and give the assurances for which I have asked.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It would subject one to the risk of prosecution by the R.S.P.C.A. to deny hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite their Adjournment Motion. The cruelty of keeping sitting a body of people who have seen, during the last four and a half months, the complete crumbling of their political ideas, the complete frustration of their policies and the complete repudiation of their election promises, would be an act of intolerable cruelty.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise—if they did not realise it before, they must surely realise it after the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)—that hardly anyone can allow Parliament to go into recess with any confidence as to the way in which the Government will handle our affairs in the absence of any check from the House of Commons. That is why it is essential to obtain from Ministers as clear an indication as possible of their attitude, position and conduct on vital matters.
I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone—though certainly not with his views—that the subject which he raised is of the greatest importance. My hon. Friends and I will be raising other equally important matters. The real anxiety of all hon. Members on leaving our country to the unchecked rule of a Government who have made a shambles of our economy in four and a half months is very real indeed.
There can be no conceivable reassurance in the changes we have had in the last 24 hours. Even those who believe that the calm serenity of the new Foreign Secretary will enable him to deal with the international situation cannot be reassured by that extraordinary exhibition we saw a few moments ago of the way in which the newly appointed Leader of the House was treated by his colleague the Paymaster-General, who attempted to lay down the conduct of the debate. I have no doubt that the Paymaster-General filled more space in the columns of HANSARD this afternoon than he has during the last couple of years. The new Leader sat punctiliously here while we watched what one might describe as the Prime Minister's personal representative—others might use a stronger expression—trying to keep an eye, as is the custom in Communist countries, on the conduct by other leading Ministers of their responsibilities.
I seek assurances on two points and, without them, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that we cannot responsibly allow this House to go into recess. The first relates to the matter which the new Leader of the House was himself handling up to 24 hours ago, the question of mortgages. What is to happen during the Recess to the flow of mortgages which are necessary if owner-occupiers are to get houses built? Considering the mess which the right hon. Gentleman left behind in his former office, no one can feel particularly assured on this issue. Indeed, the only reassuring aspect of the situation is the substitution of a Balliol man in charge of this matter for one from New College.
When is the right hon. Gentleman's mortgage option scheme to be announced and to when will it be retrospective? The Leader of the House will appreciate the point of that; that unless people know that whatever benefits this scheme


may contain—and we do not know what they are—will be retrospective to people taking motgages now, they will tend to hold back and so aggravate the falling off of building in the private sector. To what date will they be retrospective and what applications for mortgages will be covered?
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us, in the light of the pressures being put on building societies in respect of mortgage rates, that throughout the Recess there will be an unchecked flow of funds into building societies and available to them to lend without rationing or check? In his previous capacity, a few hours ago, the right hon. Gentleman told us; that building societies would be put under pressure not to carry out their announced intention to take their recommended lending rate to 7⅛ per cent. Why it is apparently infamous for a building society to charge 7⅛ per cent. when the Labour-controlled Greater London Council can charge 7¼ per cent. is a matter about which the House has not been informed.

The question that arises on this Motion—and the Leader of the House understands this better than anyone—is how are the building societies, during the months of the Recess, to be able to get funds at interest rates which the Government have, in general, raised to unprecedented levels if they are denied, by Government pressure, the right to adjust the rate at which they lend to a point at which they can afford to borrow at existing rates? In other words, how are their funds to be maintained during the Recess?

I follow up the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the negotiations over Gibraltar and which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may recall Mr. Speaker yesterday indicated, on my right hon. Friend's application for a Motion under Standing Order No. 9, that it would be possible to discuss, within reason, on this Motion. I want to know whether the Leader of the House persists in the refusal, which his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary persisted in this afternoon, to give the undertaking for which we have asked; the undertaking that the sovereignty of Gibraltar will not be diminished, reduced or handed over

to Spain without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. If that assurance cannot be given, why not? What is there in these negotiations to prevent that from happening?

I am not one of those—and there are some—who speak in this House with any hostility towards Spain or the Spanish people. I have a great affection for the Spanish people. I have many Spanish friends and I am far from being anti-Spanish, but I think that Anglo-Spanish relations are being endangered by the suspicion and ambiguity which the sinister silence of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite is producing, the sinister refusal to give a plain assurance on the lines set out in their own White Paper of quite a short time ago.

I feel very strongly about the position of the people of Gibraltar, partly for personal reasons. I had a forebear who was there to defend the Rock in the famous four-year siege many years ago and I know the Rock and its people well. They are not Spaniards. They are like ourselves, a people of mixed origins. The very name of their Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, is the clearest indication that their origin is far more widely based than Spain. They very plainly do not want Spanish sovereignty.

I should incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went into the intricacies of the Treaty of Utrecht, but I remind anyone who looks with undue favour on the Spanish claim, that we have owned the Rock longer than the Spanish did. If historical claims mean anything, which I doubt, probably a better claim is that of His Majesty the King of Morocco!

We must have a plain assurance. The former Foreign Secretary, now the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, gave a purported reason for not giving the assurance, which is more than the Prime Minister did. He said that this could not be done because our case was that sovereignty of Gibraltar was ours. Of course, that is so. No one quarrels with that, but what is to prevent anyone who has the power, as we have, saying that he will not exercise it without the consent of others concerned? That is precisely what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite


are perpetually saying about Rhodesia, where we have the sovereignty. Why cannot the same be said about Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister tried to introduce a red herring into this matter with his talk yesterday about the frigates. I thought that it was a Freudian sense of guilt that made him bring up an action of his which cost the hard-pressed shipyards of this country many millions of pounds of continuing orders, which did not deny the Spanish Navy a single ship, but which only secured that it did not get them from Britain. I cannot acquit the Government and the Prime Minister of a great deal of responsibility for what I regard as the folly of the Spanish Government in bringing up this claim at this moment and pressing it in this way.

Although the Prime Minister dug up the question of the frigates, he did not mention the other matter which exacerbated this problem, the naval exercises. The then Foreign Secretary, who was not then a Member of the House, cancelled, within a fortnight of coming into office, naval exercises which had been arranged many months ahead, and in readiness for which Spanish naval officers had been taking courses in English and signalling. That was regarded as an insulting thing to do, and in the absence of explanations it was insulting.

That does not justify the Spanish attitude or claim, but it does indicate the ham-handedness of a Government which, first, aggravates the feelings of a proud and sensitive nation and then, when those feelings produce foolish, ill-considered action causing hardship on the Gibraltar border, of which I saw something last September, appears to show weakness in the handling of negotiations by not saying plainly from the outset that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is not in issue, save in so far as the people of Gibraltar consent.

If we are to go into recess and these negotiations are to go on in an atmosphere of suspicion, not only will Anglo-Spanish relations be poisoned—some hon. Members might not regret that, but I should regret it enormously, and not only will it cause alarm to thinking people in Gibraltar, but it will serve no national purpose whatsoever. Those

negotiations, conducted against that background and in that atmosphere, will be doomed to failure.

It is no good the Prime Minister dragging in the sale of frigates, because there is one thing which all hon. Members think is a far more important issue. That is not the sale of frigates, but the sale of a free people, which this House, including the Prime Minister's own hon. Friends, will not tolerate for a moment.

Therefore, what harm can be done, if, with all the troubles gathering around the Government, with all the economic difficulties which they have encountered and aggravated, and with all the other problems at home and abroad with which they are so ineffectively trying to cope, they clear up at least one of the difficulties? Why cannot they say plainly and clearly that the people of Gibraltar, who have fought at our side for 250 years, who have a loyalty to the British Crown and British connection unrivalled in the world, can go into the period of the Summer Recess with a certain pledge and a clear understanding that they will not be sold down the river by Her Majesty's Government?

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I find it somewhat amazing that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) should raise the issue of the problems of our relations with Spain at this moment, particularly in view of the very discreditable record of past Conservative Administrations in this regard, stretching back over very many years. When one remembers, if one is politically old enough, the whole attitude of the Conservative Party in the past that helped to establish a dictatorship in Spain, it seems to me amazing that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should still be attempting to support a régime of that nature, and be attacking what I regard as the honourable effort of Her Majesty's Government on taking office to make clear this Government's difference of view on this matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman regards the Spanish régime in this light, why is he so hesitant in making clear that he and his colleagues are not prepared to hand free people over to it? If he is concerned to go into past history, is he seeking to justify the efforts of a


great many of his hon. Friends to impose Communist tyranny on the Spanish people too?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was merely drawing attention to a political history of which many hon. Members are well aware. I should have thought that no one on either side of the House would wish to support the highly discreditable actions of previous Conservative Governments in this respect.
I support the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) for some assurance on our policy in relation to Vietnam while the House is in recess, and particularly in relation to the American Government's attitude and such influence as we possess upon them. In common with my hon. Friend, I very recently had the opportunity to discuss this subject with Congressmen and Senators, and some members of the United States Administration. It is a subject which divides the United States very deeply.
It would be a mistake to imagine that there is widespread, or anything like unanimous, support in the United States for the policy of escalation in Vietnam, which is now being followed by the United States.
There are certain matters for which the Government have a more immediate responsibility to which I want to call attention and ask for certain assurances. I found in the United States that there were fairly repeated references to the responsibilities which the United States felt it had under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty and which it claimed Britain also possessed. My understanding—and I have had this assurance in the past—is that Her Majesty's Government have never accepted that the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty imposed any kind of military commitment. Nor have they accepted the action in Vietnam as constituting aggression in the terms of the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty. It is of the utmost importance that that attitude should be clearly reasserted by Her Majesty's Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone properly referred to the very deep anxiety which there must be, not only in this country but throughout the world, about the present trend of

American policy and the way in which it may lead to a much wider conflagration in which we would inevitably be involved. One issue which is raised in the United States is whether there is any commitment under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his new appointment, will give an assurance that we in this country do not accept a military commitment here. Many of us suspect that the attempt in the United States to found a commitment on the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty is a means of trying to justify action which many of us believe is wholly unjustified. This is a commitment which the United States itself has created and is not binding on anyone else and cannot be found in any reading of the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said, it is of supreme importance that, before we rise for the Recess, we should have further clear assurances in this matter from my right hon. Friend. In this specific case, a direct responsibility is borne by Her Majesty's Government, unlike certain other matters, and I am eager that they should press the United States Administration for a de-escalation rather than an escalation.
I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the United States, which, alas, because of other events, received very little publicity, that he was anxious to prevent further military escalation of the war. I am glad that this statement was made. There are many in the United States who welcomed the modest dissociation of Her Majesty's Government from American policy. That attitude must be maintained, and it must be made clear that we are wholly opposed to the policy on which the American Government appear to be set and which is causing deep anxiety in the United States and in this country. It is making almost impossible any moves for a settlement in Europe or elsewhere. This issue must be brought home to the United States. Her Majesty's Government must do whatever they can to make this point utterly clear.
As we are going into recess, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give the limited assurance for which I have asked.

4.55 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I have promised to be very brief. I will therefore limit my remarks to the question of Gibraltar, which is where I hope to be going very shortly, as I have informed the responsible Minister.
As congratulations seem to be in order today, I should like to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the most effective speech which many of us can remember for a very long time. I enjoyed every moment of it. Probably the opposite was the case on the benches opposite. He certainly proved definitely that the Paymaster-General can still talk as well as conspire and plot.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will speak on the question of Gibraltar, because all-party Motions on this subject have been tabled during the last few weeks. Concern should be expressed on this topic by hon. Members on both sides. There should be no attempt on the Government benches to make party politics out of the question of the frigates, and so on.
I read in a leader in one of the newspapers today or yesterday that one could always trust the Prime Minister to be waspish when he was on a weak wicket. It was because he was on a weak wicket over Gibraltar that he tried to bring in these controversial items about which any hon. Member on this side would be ready to speak. But what we should be concentrating on is the people of Gibraltar. There is no doubt that there is genuine apprehension and fear among the ordinary people of Gibraltar. Those of us who have contacts with Gibraltar know that it is probably almost the second or third subject on which we get letters at present from the people of Gibraltar worrying about their political future. Therefore, it is not good enough for us to get the answer which I expect that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has said that he is satisfied with the way in which Her Majesty's Government are carrying on the negotiations. That should not bring all-round relief to any hon. Member, because there are many people in Gibraltar who do not share their Chief Minister's faith in the British Government. That is well known to all of us on both sides of the House.
Since we have claimed that we have no doubt about where the sovereignty of Gibraltar lies, what possible reason is there for our not saying that we do not intend to part with that sovereignty? Why is it that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are so coy about making a simple statement to the effect that we have no intention of parting with one inch of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, which we have asserted is ours, without the consent of the people of Gibraltar? If the Leader of the House would make such a statement he would allay every doubt in the House. What is worrying is that, day after day, there have been Questions and Motions for the Adjournment of the House to get that simple statement, and the mere fact that it is not forthcoming cannot but raise doubts throughout the House and the country and on the Rock. The Leader of the House now alone has it in his power to clear up this matter, even at this late stage.
I said that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar might well have said that he is satisfied with his negotiations with Her Majesty's Government. There are other distinguished gentlemen abroad who have put faith in the present British Government and Prime Minister. There was a time when the Chief Ministers of Aden and South Arabia would have said precisely the same thing that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has apparently said today. There was doubtless a time when our partners in E.F.T.A. would have believed assurances which we gave about our trading relations with them, but they were let down. We can find examples over and over again during the last 20 months when those overseas who trusted us and the word of the Government have found themselves betrayed. Hence, unless we get the definite statement for which we have asked, those who go to Gibraltar during the Recess, including myself, have a duty to make it clear that the people there should be very careful in trusting their fate any longer to the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: As one who has participated in some previous debates on the Adjournment Motion, I followed with great interest the interchange between my right hon.


Friend the Paymaster-General and Mr. Speaker. Many of us were very gratified to discover that the correct interpretation of the rules of order means that much wider debate is possible than we, in our timid manner, had thought in the past. We therefore propose, not only on this occasion but in the future, to make the fullest possible use of the accurate account of the rules of the House which Mr. Speaker has been good enough to give to us.
I move from that vote of thanks to another happy note. I congratulate my right hon. Friend who was Minister of Housing and Local Government on his appointment as Leader of the House. I know him much better than the Leader of the Opposition. He has been an extremely good Minister of Housing and I believe that he will be a very good Leader of the House. The Leader of the Opposition was quite unfair in one thing he said about my right hon. Friend. He said that he was one of the three slickest tricksters in the business, and he named the two other tricksters. At that moment, I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) positively wincing. I think that he has since left the House in a sulk.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West is not even rated in the first three. Most of us on this side—and, I dare say, most hon. Members opposite—would have nominated him absolutely No. 1. It was very hard that the Leader of the Opposition, when in such a rare gay mood, should have dealt with his associate in such a savage and grudging fashion, particularly as his right hon. Friend has for as long as four or five months sustained his Leader without once suggesting that he would stab him in the back. It was very harsh of the right hon. Gentleman not to have tried to spread his bonhomie further round the House, and include his right hon. Friend among those to be congratulated.
I am also glad that my right hon. Friend has been appointed Leader of the House because there are topics in which some of us have been interested for some time and on which he will, perhaps, give us assurance. I hope that we shall have an assurance that during the Recess, and in preparation for the return of the House in the autumn, he will

examine the various proposals that have been made for the reform of the House of Commons. Strong pressure has come from this side for many major changes in the conduct of our business. We want to do away with all the nonsense of Black Rod, and so on, and clear up a lot of flummery. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be eager to do that.
On other reforms of the House there is great controversy within the parties as well as between the parties. Speaking for myself, I still strongly oppose the whole idea of establishing specialist Committees, but we should decide the matter once and for all. We should not have a position in which debate goes on interminably. The debate on the subject, being so interminable, has prevented other urgent reforms.
I hope that during the Recess my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity of preparing a Government Motion for altering the rules governing Standing Order No. 9. We have had discussions and representations, and a whole series of examples in the past two months has illustrated that it becomes more and more difficult for subjects to be raised under the Standing Order. That is No. 1 reform. We want more flexibility on the Floor of the House of Commons itself, so that urgent matters can be debated without delay when, say, 40 or 50 hon. Members in the House demand it. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in proceeding with his plans for the reform of the House of Commons, will present, very early after our return, a positive programme for achieving that result.
Another matter in which I and some of my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, have shown interest recently—and, indeed, over many years—is the Suez incident. I do not want to embarrass hon. Members opposite, but this is rather an important topic. Recent revelations suggest that the Government of 1956 had prior knowledge. There are still some right hon. Members who were prominent in that Government—and I speak not only of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), but also of the Leader of the Opposition himself. He probably knew as much about Suez as anyone, and might have said a word about it this afternoon, in between the banter. But he did not. We have now


been told that prior to the Suez expedition there was a secret flight of Ministers, and of those acting for Ministers, and that they signed a treaty with the Israeli and French Governments to launch the expedition against Suez in 1956.
If that is true, lies were told the House of Commons on a scale hardly known in this century—and that is saying a great deal. The matter should be cleared up. I have tried many times to get the subject dealt with by the same honourable method established by the Liberal Government in the First World War, when Mr. Asquith set up an inquiry into the Gallipoli expedition—how it happened, and its origin. My purpose, if I have an opportunity, is, by means of a Bill or a Motion, to raise the matter in Suez week, in November next—to discuss it precisely on the precedent laid down by the Asquith Government in the First World War—when I hope that we will get to the truth of the matter.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite can ponder these things during the Summer Recess. The Leader of the Opposition will have plenty of time to prepare his speech on the subject, which we hope we can look forward to, whether he is hoaxed or not. Incidentally, I was among those who got the bogus invitation, but the only two simpletons to accept it were the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who both scampered along to the South Vietnam reception. The right hon. Gentleman must be hard up for dinners if he responds like that. Do not any of his hon. Friends ever take him out for a meal?
The right hon. Gentleman should give his mind to the subject of Suez, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will repeat the assurance given to us by the previous Leader of the House that we shall have an opportunity to debate it when we return. I would prefer my right hon. Friend to go further, and to agree that my Motion or Bill should be given time—for I am always willing to accommodate the Government, when I can do so reasonably, and I would be glad if they were to introduce their own Bill, in which case I assure them that I will withdraw mine in their favour——

Mr. Wigg: Would my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House

on being able to ventilate this subject this afternoon, and would he also pay a tribute to the Leader of the Opposition who, by his speech this afternoon, has made it possible?

Mr. Foot: If the Paymaster-General had been here earlier he would know that I had already given the right hon. Gentleman a vote of thanks, and I do not propose to give him another—at least, not until he has earned it.
Gibraltar has been mentioned. Leaving aside one Tory treaty, let us turn to another. With Suez, there was this secret treaty, and the Treaty of Utrecht was a secret treaty. If ever a treaty was signed behind the back of the House by a Tory Minister it was the Treaty of Utrecht. Indeed, the Tory Minister responsible for negotiating it—and no doubt setting the pattern for the party opposite when dealing with Suez—was attainted for high treason, and was not able to live in this country until allowed to do so by a generous Whig Government 10 years later. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite should be careful of recalling the Treaty of Utrecht and its consequences, particularly as it is the curious form in which Gibraltar is mentioned in that Treaty that gives rise to some of the difficulties.
I respond to what the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said on the matter. We on this side of the House are also very much concerned about what should happen about Gibraltar. I am not concerned because the Government have any intention to sell the people of Gibraltar. I do not think that that will happen. Nothing I have heard makes me think that that is the case. I do not think it a good idea for hon. Members to suggest that something will take place on the basis of a very flimsy foundation. I do not think anything of the sort will occur. It would be quite wrong that it should.
But there are different ways in which the problem of Gibraltar could be solved. In my opinion, it would be proper for the present position to be maintained, or, if the people of Gibraltar wanted integration with this country—which would be a compliment to this country—we should be ready to consider it, just as we were ready to consider it for Malta. That would be a tolerable solution. It would also be tolerable if they said that they


wanted to have independence, although there is difficulty about that because of the form of the Treaty of Utrecht.
What would be absolutely intolerable would be that the sovereignty of Gibraltar should be altered to the disadvantage of the people of Gibraltar. Of course, we would not tolerate that. I am sure that the Government well understand that if they were to alter the sovereignty of Gibraltar in that sense, it would, of course, cause the greatest difficulties, not only on the other side of the House, but on this. I do not believe that the Government have ever embarked on such a proposal about Gibraltar. At the end of this debate we should make clear to the people of Gibraltar that the Government have no such intentions and that, even though we may discuss the three possible solutions I have suggested, the Spanish solution, or any approach to it, is ruled out.
I am very glad to hear that the Opposition are now against the sale of a free people. I think those were the words used by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I am glad to hear that he is against the sale of free people in Gibraltar. I hope that he is against the sale of free people in Rhodesia. I wish that he and his party had been opposed to the sale of free people in Spain. If that had been the case we would not have had the Second World War and many of the difficulties which we have today.
On the economic questions which we have been discussing——

Sir F. Bennett: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of Gibraltar, may I interrupt him as he mentioned my speech? He said that it would be wrong to suggest that there was any truth in reports, or that credence should be placed in the idea of the people of Gibraltar being sold. The simplest way would be for Her Majesty's Government to repudiate that, just as they have not hesitated to do in the case of Rhodesia.

Mr. Foot: I have listened to what Her Majesty's Government have said and I do not interpret it in the way in which the hon. Member for Torquay does. I have stated quite clearly what I believe would be an honourable solution of the Gibraltar problem and what I believe would be

a dishonourable solution. Nothing I have heard from the Government comes into the category of a dishonourable solution, but it comes into the category of the three possible and honourable solutions.
Hon. Members opposite have a right to state their views, but I think that it will be plain, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House speaks, that it is much better, in the interests of the people of Gibraltar, that it should not be suggested that there is a fierce difference about this matter as there is not a fierce difference. To suggest that there were would do some injury to the people of Gibraltar, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Torquay does not wish to do that.
I am very glad to hear that the Conservative Party is now in favour of preventing the sale of free people whether it happens in Spain, Rhodesia or Gibraltar, but there is also another place in which we are interested—Vietnam. The people of Vietnam have the right to choose their own future, also. This is one of the reasons why many of us on this side of the House have been so persistently concerned with this subject. We have not had any concern from hon. Members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition, who covered so many subjects, seemed to get the whole world out of proportion and chose to omit this. He left to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) much the most important problem of all and one which is not easy to solve. I hope that the Leader of the House will give the assurances for which my hon. Friend has asked on this subject.
I merely add that in my opinion the most serious event, or the most serious indication of events, which has occurred during the past five or six weeks was the statements made by U Thant, when he returned from his visit to Moscow. These were the most important warnings to the world. U Thant is, I think, regarded by everyone concerned about the peace of the world, certainly by everyone on this side of the House, as one of the greatest statesmen of the century. It would be an appalling loss to the United Nations if U Thant ceased to be the Secretary-General. One of the assurances which we might send from this House would be to let him know how strong and powerful is the support in this country and in this


House for him to stay in his post as Secretary-General.
I think that the most impressive speech I have heard within the walls of this Palace was the speech which U Thant delivered to the combined meeting of Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In 20 minutes he stated the whole world position. He stated it with absolute responsibility. He also made many criticisms of policies pursued by many Governments, including our own, but, though those criticisms were made in a manner designed to win their point and were expressed with great courtesy, they were still very strong.
U Thant, the leading pacificator throughout the world, came from Moscow a few weeks ago saying that he regarded the Vietnam situation as graver than he had ever known before. What did he mean? Of course, what he meant was that in his opinion—he was not stating it in these words, but we could deduce it—the escalation of the war by the United States, the bombing of Haiphong and Hanoi and other forms of escalation which had taken place, the more intensive bombing, had led to a situation in which the Soviet Government were faced with the most difficult choice that any Government have had to face since the Cuba crisis in considering how to react to that situation.
I hope very much that the Soviet Government will react to the situation with the maximum restraint, but I think that that Government have shown much more restraint in reacting to the Vietnam situation over the last few years than have the United States Government. That is why we on this side of the House are so critical of our own Government, because we believe that instead of criticisms being directed so strongly to the Soviet Government they should be directed more objectively to the United States Government, who have rejected urgings of restraint not only from us but from growing numbers of the public in the United States and other countries all over the world.
If there is a deterioration in the Vietnam situation even more serious than we can see at the moment, and even though it may not involve the direct points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, it would surely demand the return

of the House. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to recall the House at any period if there is any serious worsening of the situation in Vietnam. It is the responsibility of the Government to allow the House to come back and to speak because there might very well be a need for this House to be recalled. We might debate the danger of what could possibly be the gravest international situation since the Cuba crisis, 1962. This issue overshadows all others. Therefore, my main purpose in speaking is to support the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone on this question.
For the rest, I will not give my views about the Government changes. I have seen so many Government changes on the Conservative side of the House. When I have read the names on those occasions and have seen the names down to the Ministries it has reminded me of what Junius said—that their names read like a satire upon all Governments. I should not like to apply that the other way round. I am in much too gentle a mood for that.
However, I hope that during this period the Government will ponder on many of the things which many of us have been saying not merely on international affairs, but also on our domestic problems. Many of us are most deeply concerned that our Government appear to be embarked on economic measures which are opposed to the whole philosophy which many of us have adopted over the years. I hope that they are not doing so. Some of us have tried to restrain them from courses which we thought were wrong and to divert them into different courses.
The Leader of the Opposition taunted me and said, "If you wanted to defeat the Prices and Incomes Bill, you could have done so". We could have done so only by going into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite and thus apparently supporting their doctrinaire laissez faire ideas. That was one of the reasons for not doing so. There are many other equally good reasons for not doing so. We are in no position to be taunted by hon. Members opposite in this respect, because had they wanted to fight the Prices and Incomes Bill, they could have fought it much harder than they did.
If ever there were a fake fight and a fake opposition, this was it. We could see that. They were complimented by the Former First Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, who had made rings around them. We have been confronted with the most feeble official opposition that we have had in generations—and that is a further incitement for us to supply the deficiency ourselves.
What we shall strive to do, and what we intend to do, is to get the Government to change many of the policies which we think are wrong and to divert their course into channels which we think are right, but at the same lime not to inflict upon the long-suffering people of this country a return of such a collection as we see thinly represented on the opposite benches. We do not want to do that, and there are multitudes of people in the country who understand our position perfectly well and who appreciate it. Some of them have written to me and have said, "We agree with many of your criticism, but do not let that crowd get back". That is a point of view which we need not argue in the House, because we can see it for ourselves.
I wish the Government well, but I hope that they ponder carefully the representations which my hon. Friends have made by our speeches, our Motions and our votes.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: And by abstentions.

Mr. Foot: And by our abstentions, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) says.

Mr. Hogg: Which were totally ineffective.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is ill informed about his history. If I went into all the historical analogies on the subject which could disprove his case, I should weary the House even more than I have wearied it.
I wish the Government well as long as they adopt the policies which I have advocated. I hope that they have a happy summer and come back much better men than they are. I could have proposed other changes in the Administration which might not have commanded full support throughout the House, but I am

not worried about the changes which have taken place; they do not seem to me to make all that difference. Above all, I hope that the Government will recognise the serious case which has been put from this side of the House, and which we are still waiting to hear from the other side of the House, about the paramount issue of Vietnam, and on these other matters which we have sought to press from this side of the House.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I am as anxious as any that the House, having laboured long and hard during recent weeks, should rise at a reasonable hour for the Recess and should enjoy that refreshment of mind, body and spirit it provides. Heaven knows, right hon. Gentlemen opposite, battered and bruised, their supporters divided and confused, need that refreshment. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the Government need a pause for reflection of what has gone so sadly wrong.
But on this occasion I am opposed to the House rising in the absence of a clear and unequivocal assurance from the Government concerning the talks which are shortly to be resumed with the Spanish Government on the subject of Gibraltar, and I share the doubts and anxieties which were expressed in such a cogent fashion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thomes (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett).
The House may recall that on Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister a Question. I invited him to make plain to the House and to the whole world, as the former Foreign Secretary had failed to do the day before, that as long as the Gibraltarians wish it we are in Gibraltar and mean to stay there. Others of my hon. Friends—and I do not doubt, in their hearts, many hon. Members opposite, too—have sought over the weeks a similar assurance. And all that they have been told, all that we were told at Question Time today by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, is what no one, except, possibly, the Spanish Government disputes—namely, that our sovereignty over Gibraltar is not in question. Why should they not accept it? We have as good a title to Gibraltar as anyone.
However, that is not the issue, and it never has been the issue. The issue is not the legality of our sovereignty. It is whether that sovereignty is to be the subject of compromise or even surrender in defiance of the wishes of the Gibraltarians and of this House. That is the issue. The whole House has long been accustomed to the evasive answers which the Prime Minister gives on these occasions but here, I suggest, was an occasion which demanded something more from him. This country is responsible for the well-being of 24,000 British subjects in Gibraltar who have no voice in this place. We have a moral responsibility for them.
I should have thought that not merely national interest, but our honour—I choose that word deliberately—required the Prime Minister to give a plain answer to a plain question. Instead, he chose, in an obscure way which still puzzles a great many of my hon. Friends, to refer to frigates, a matter which was not mentioned in the Question and which certainly was not in my mind. Indeed, his answer was a perfect example of standing facts on their head. If anyone in the House has been responsible for causing bad blood with Spain it is the Prime Minister himself in respect of his conduct both when in opposition and within a matter of days of entering No. 10 Downing Street.
There was even less excuse, I suggest, for the Prime Minister's failure to give a firm assurance on Tuesday, because it followed the strange reluctance of the former Foreign Secretary to say unequivocally on the previous day that the Government would not agree to any change in the status of Gibraltar without the approval of the Gibraltarians. The darkness of doubt could have been dispelled in an instant had the Prime Minister chosen to answer a straight question in a straight fashion. But he did not cast a single ray of light upon the matter. All that he has succeeded in doing has been to raise suspicions that maybe he is prepared to do a deal behind the back of Parliament during the Recess, when he cannot be called to account.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White) indicated dissent.

Mr. Braine: It is not the facts that matter so much as what people believe the facts might be. I am not suggesting for one moment that this is in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, I find it extremely difficult to understand, having regard to their past record on the subject of Spain, and the views that they have never hesitated to make known when in opposition, with the difficulties these have made for Anglo-Spanish relations, why they cannot come to this House and stand by what they laid down in their White Paper last year. Let me quote a passage from the White Paper. It says:
Great Britain has at no time renounced her title to Gibraltar or failed to defend her position there and will not do so now. She has no desire to quarrel with Spain but she will stand by the people of Gibraltar in their present difficulties and take whatever measures may be necessary to defend and sustain them.
Since the publication of the White Paper the situation has changed. The restrictions imposed by the Spanish authorities have increased. They have been increasing the last few weeks. Yet we are shortly to resume talks with the Spanish Government.
There is considerable apprehension on this score in Gibraltar, as my postbag reveals. Possibly because of my known connection with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or possibly because I have been identified, in all the years that I have been in this House, with Colonial matters, I have been receiving a very large number of letters from Gibraltarians. A letter I received the other day expressed a sentiment common to many. The writer said:
We are British subjects and are proud to be so. We like the way we live with Britain and do not wish to see this changed. In fact we would like even closer association with Britain, if this is possible.
That is the kind of sentiment which appears in letter after letter which I and my hon. Friends have been receiving. There is considerable apprehension in Gibraltar at the moment, and there has been for some time, about the outcome of these resumed talks.
I am perfectly well aware that this is not the occasion to argue whether there should be talks with Spain. For all of my political life I have laboured for better relations with Spain. I have a deep admiration—[Interruption]—this is


not a matter to sneer at—I have a deep admiration for the Spanish character and genius and the Spanish contribution to European civilisation. I was a member, as were many other hon. Gentlemen, of the Anglo-Spanish Parliamentary Group. I resigned from that Group for the simple reason that I did not find it in my heart to belong to an organisation of that kind at a time when the Spanish Government, for their own reasons, were bringing intolerable pressures to bear upon our fellow British subjects in Gibraltar. I am not arguing whether there should be talks. In almost any situation it is better to talk than to throw brickbats. I am not criticising the Government on that score at all. But perhaps I may be permitted to say in passing that I find it repugnant that these particular talks should have been resumed at a time when the Spanish authorities are stepping up their pressures upon the Gibraltarians.
Nor am I proposing to comment on what may or may not be discussed at these talks, if they take place, except to say two things. First, there have been rumours, and I put it no higher than that, of possible concessions to Spain, which if true, would in my judgment be wholly unacceptable to the people of Gibraltar and to this House. Secondly, Parliament has a right to insist that the Government should make it plain that readiness to talk with Spain does not indicate a readiness to settle at any price.
It is by dealing with this point that the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, could do a great service to the Government and to this House. It is the Government's failure to express this feeling plainly at a time when Spanish pressures upon Gibraltar have been increasing that obliges me to oppose this Motion. It would be quite wrong in my view for this House to rise without any knowledge of what may be discussed and agreed in the talks. It would be quite wrong for the House to rise without any correction of the unfortunate impression created by the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary that there may be some weakening in our position.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister, on Tuesday, whether he would confirm the final paragraph of last year's White

Paper, which I have quoted and which, after all, is the basic document on this matter, or whether he would repudiate it, the Prime Minister answered in these words:
… negotiations are going on and I would rather we said what we have to say to the Spanish Government in this matter. There will be plenty of time to tell the House of Commons, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1388.]
I am sure that on reflection the Prime Minister would wish that he had not used those words, because there will not be plenty of time. If the House accepts this Motion, then by the time it resumes on 18th October and the Government lay an agreement, if it has secured one, before the House, as convention requires, the pass may have been sold. I am not saying that it will be, but in the absence of any clear and unequivocal statement at this stage it may be. The very evasiveness of the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary on this subject suggests that this is at least in the realm of possibility. If this happens it would be to the indelible shame of the British Government. But there is nothing that this House could do about it.
It is not good enough to say, as the Leader of the House may argue, and as has been argued by Ministers before, that any agreement which results from these resumed talks will be laid before Parliament and that that is in accordance with the normal practice. This is a situation without precedent. Not only would any agreement, if reached, be between a Government who are answerable to a freely elected Parliament and a Government who are not. That is the first feature. The second is that such an agreement would concern not merely the rights and interests of Britain, for which we have a charge here, but those of a territory which, far from demanding independence, desires continued and close association with this country under the British Crown. It is imperative, therefore, before this House rises, that the Government should give a clear assurance that no concessions will be made in regard to sovereignty or status, in which case we can depart without further anxieties on that score. If, on the other hand, it is in the mind of the Government that some concessions are contemplated, of a kind which it would not be unreasonable to grant, if the people of


Gibraltar were in agreement with them, particularly if it then led to a permanent and honourable solution of this much-vexed problem, then we must have an assurance that the Government will, with the approval of Mr. Speaker, use the normal machinery of Parliament to recall the House before any agreement is signed, rather than to present us with a fait accompli. Nothing less than that will satisfy my hon. Friends and myself.
The Leader of the House brings great skill, expertise and enthusiasm to his new task. One may have disagreed with him politically in the past and have been highly critical of him in his rôle of Minister of Housing and Local Government, but it would indeed be churlish not to wish him success in his new rôle. I hope that from now on he will recognise that he should hold the conscience of the House dear. This is a subject which should not be a matter of party difference. What happens to the 24,000 Gibraltarians is a matter of interest, and it should be a matter of honour, to every Member of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that and, when he replies, give us the assurance we seek.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I feel anxiety about the House going away when there are very urgent matters for which we are responsible, but I certainly do not regard Vietnam as among the matters for which we are responsible. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may, as a result of recent events, have leaned that perhaps making statements about American conduct and dissociating oneself from them in Vietnam can be expensive, when the £ comes under pressure.
I want to speak about Gibraltar. Of course the wishes of the inhabitants of a territory of which we have been rulers for a long time are an important consideration, but I do not regard them as the only consideration. I do not think that it is responsible to leave inhabitants in an economic position, particularly inhabitants without very much political experience, in which they cannot earn their living, merely because that is their choice.
This also applies in regard to Rhodesia, which is the subject on which

I want to say most. I am very anxious indeed about our going away while the Government are committed not to settle with Rhodesia without recalling the House, because that in practice means that they will not settle with Rhodesia. That in practice means that this thing will run on. It is running on terribly expensively. The blockade of the Mozambique channel, while keeping an aircraft carrier there with escorts and flying 1,000 miles from its port on a blockade patrol, is, to say the least of it, enormously more expensive than the additional cost to Rhodesia of importing her petrol through Bechuanaland, still a British Colony. After all, the Rhodesians have just removed petrol rationing.
Then there is the R.A.F. in Zambia, who are not allowed to use Tanzania, which cries out for us to make war on Rhodesia. Just as a single example, the cost of keeping a Typhoon flying operationally for one hour is a round trip by a Britannia carrying petrol from Nairobi.
These are very expensive operations, but they are far more expensive indirectly. I refer to the amount of ill will we have gained for ourselves from our third biggest customer—South Africa. There is almost a willing boycott upon our trade there. The Japanese, the Germans and the French are all profiting enormously by the expansion of trade. This is £360 million of our trade.
Worst of all, it is copper. I think that the Prime Minister is under very much of a delusion if he imagines that our copper troubles, instead of being caused very largely by our Rhodesian policy, would be worsened if we settled with Rhodesia. All my copper friends in Zambia assure me that there would be no trouble all in Zambia settling with Smith as long as we stopped propping Zambia up, because the Zambians know very well that they are utterly dependent upon that copper and cannot do without it. Banda, who is a good deal less dependent, knew that perfectly well and said so. He said, "I cannot live without Smith", or whoever rules Rhodesia, "and I have to live with it". The moment we stop propping Zambia up, the copper difficulties will come to an end.
Of course we shall not get back to the price which we had before these troubles. That wise price, imposed by the copper


people to prevent substitutes coming into this market, will no longer be recoverable. But if we do not do it, copper may well go over £1,000 a ton. Then it will be serious for our balance of payments.
What is the position with regard to Rhodesia now? What is the point of sanctions at this time? Military sanctions are, as the prime Minister has often said, and as he knows, out. They are out because they would be wrong. They are out because I do not think that our troops would stand for it. In any event, they are out because they are utterly beyond our capacity. No Chiefs of Staff would sanction this operation without committing two divisions. We know perfectly well that we have not got the logistics to support a brigade on the Zambesi. Therefore, talks about military intervention are nonsense.
Sanctions are plainly not working in the sense of bringing Mr. Smith's régime down. All my information is that Rhodesians are at this point over the hump and that economically things are getting better rather than worse. I have a number of sources and there is a large measure of agreement on that. The tobacco is coming out. I am not going to say where, but it is coming out, and I will go wide enough to say that it is coming to Europe and that the people who are getting it in Europe are doing very nicely, thank you. It is getting easier. The farmers, who were asked to hold back their deliveries, are now being asked to expedite them. One very large producer told me that he had had two urgent telephone calls asking, "Can you let us have more?"
Some of us listened yesterday to three very charming professors whom Mr. Smith, I think very unwisely, expelled from the Rhodesian University. These professors held a meeting yesterday and, as far as I know, there is no objection to my quoting things which were said there. They gave remarkable confirmation when one of them told us that a Liberal economist who had access to the Government papers and position said to them, "You cannot go on putting your faith in these sanctions. Believe me—and I know—the Government's economic position is very much stronger than anybody thinks it is." From such a hostile source, that was fairly remarkable evidence.
What is the point of sanctions now? The Rhodesians have been getting out of their difficulty by a quick adaptation of their economy to fit in with the South African economy. That is what sanctions are doing, and it is all that they are doing. We are giving independence to the South African Protectorates. It is an independence which, in practice, means that economically they become Bantustans completely dependent upon the Union economy. If these sanctions go on, all that we are doing is making Rhodesia into an Anglostan dependent upon and knit into the South African economy. I just cannot believe that that is the best way to serve our African friends in Rhodesia. Every day that this goes on, this pressure increases. More and more will we find Rhodesia fitting into the South African picture.
One of my hon. Friends said the other day that principle has no price. That is something he might tell the Chancellor some time. On the other hand, it is extremely easy to have principles at somebody else's expense. One can talk about self-determination and let the people run over the precipice, like the Gadarene swine. One can talk about one's principles and see the people with whom one is entrusted—that is, the Africans—pushed into a much worse position than is available to be negotiated now, knowing that, each day the negotiations are delayed, one's position to negotiate will become worse. I do not feel that this is a responsible way to behave.
I urge upon my right hon. Friend that there is no alternative at this point but to negotiate for the best. We cannot get our terms. We have lost on this one and the more we go on, we are losing at somebody else's expense.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: In his speech this afternoon, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made a statement with which hon. Members on this side thoroughly agree. He referred to three points or factors which, he thought, were predominant concerning Gibraltar. It is rare that hon. Members on this side can agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, but I think that I speak for nearly all of us when I say that the three points which he enumerated for Gibraltar were almost exactly the


three points which we regard as paramount concerning that territory.
What is so regrettable is that as we have seen earlier this week, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale may say one thing but will not back up his convictions in the Division Lobby. Therefore, whilst we welcome his support, we have to dismiss it as a matter of little value and of little weight to us because he will not have the courage to come back to this House after the Recess, if Gibraltar has been sold down the river, and put his vote to the test in the Division Lobby with us on this issue. He has never done it yet. Therefore, we have to dismiss his support with much regret.
We have had a fairly severe time in the last few weeks with the rush of panic legislation through the House. I should like to take this early opportunity also of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman who finds himself at the Dispatch Box this afternoon on his new appointment as Leader of the House. We are in some difficulty, however, because shortly before he came in this afternoon and took up the illustrious position which he is now occupying, his right hon. Friend the former First Secretary came in and took charge of the Questions that were directed to his former Department. We are in some difficulty to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has, so to speak, accepted office yet or whether he is simply standing in; and, if so, why the former First Secretary came along for Questions to the Department of Economic Affairs.
The new Leader of the House will be asked many questions——

Mr. James Dickens: It was surely obvious that this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), the former First Secretary, did not answer any Questions from the Front Bench. It is quite wrong, therefore, for the hon. Member to create this atmosphere of ambiguity and confusion.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I merely say that it seemed rather strange to us on this side that the former First Secretary came in at the commencement of Questions to his Department, did not answer any of them but left as soon as they were concluded, and sat the whole time

beside the Parliamentary Secretary. If he was not the Minister for Economic Affairs at that time, where was the Minister? Why was not the new Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and First Secretary—the former Foreign Secretary—present?
The right hon. Gentleman who is occupying, so to speak, the hot seat today has been asked many pertinent questions about Gibraltar and Rhodesia, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the chronic financial situation. I wonder whether the new Leader of the House will be able to reply to these quesions with authority. I do not for one moment agree with the right hon. Gentleman's policies, although I am an admirer of his power of persuasion and oratory, but I do not think that he has been in the job long enough to be able to reply adequately to the seaching questions which my right hon. and hon. Friends have put to him.
A few moments ago, the Prime Minister came into the House. I hope that when the new Leader of the House was talking to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he asked him whether he could give the urgent assurance which we need about Gibraltar. If he is not empowered to give the House that assurance, which we have not had yet although we have been asking for it for many weeks, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should get authority from the Prime Minister to give us the answer which we require before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
We had a very long Session in one way and another. We have had a difficult Budget followed by a contentious Finance Bill, and that in turn has been followed by a succession of very complicated Bills. As a consequence of the Finance Bill, we have had the Selective Employment Payments Bill. That was followed by the Prices and Incomes Bill, which has been rushed through the House in a very ham-handed manner.
After what is almost an unparalleled succession of fairly late nights, hon. Members are in need of a rest, but the rest that we need matters not one iota compared with the necessity for Members of the House to keep an urgent and continuous vigil on the outcome not only of the question of Gibraltar, but also of the question of Rhodesia, to which my right


hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition also referred.
As for Rhodesia, when the Prime Minister spoke about this a few months ago he indicated that he expected the matter to be solved, not in months, but in weeks. Therefore, it will, perhaps, come as a bit of a shock to hon. and right hon. Members to realise that, when the House resumes at the end of October, U.D.I. will be almost one year old; and, as far as we on this side of the House can see, the effects of the policies which the Government have pursued towards Rhodesia have had little or no effect at all on altering the headlong course which that country is now embarked upon.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) gave us an example a few moments ago when he said that petrol rationing was being or had been abolished for people living in Rhodesia. I can tell him that the guaranteed price which Rhodesian farmers are getting from their Government for the forthcoming tobacco crop is a considerable improvement on the price they got last year—much better.

Mr. Paget: Twenty-eight pennies.

Mr. Farr: I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's support. While we are going into recess and hon. Members are scattered all over the country, while this burning question of Rhodesia remains completely unanswered, with the answer apparently beyond the grasp of this Government, German, Japanese, French and Italian businessmen are making hay where the sun shines in Rhodesia, in Bulawayo and Salisbury, and are moving into what was largely a trading preserve of this country.
As to Gibraltar, which is the main reason for my taking part in the debate today, there we have a really strong reason why this House should not consider going into recess. What we need is not for the House to be dispersed all over the country but a two-day or three-day debate on Gibraltar, because there are many urgent problems connected with that territory that have been unresolved. What are the Government planning to do during the Recess? So far as we can find out, the talks with the Spanish are to continue. We cannot get from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary any firm assurance as to the future of that Colony.
At Question Time, and at the time of the statement in the House this week, Ministers were asked to state categorically that the status of Gibraltar would not be affected while the House was in recess, and continuously the theme running through the responses from Ministers has been that they will not give the guarantee which this House is seeking, namely, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar will not be effected while the House is adjourned for the Summer Recess, and without the full co-operation and the full acquiescence of the people of that territory.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is not the hon. Member misleading himself about this? It is true that the Government have refused to give the undertaking which they were asked for, but that was not an undertaking in the terms the hon. Member is now reciting. It was an undertaking that they would in no circumstances recommend any agreement changing the basis of the régime in Gibraltar without assuring themselves that the people of Gibraltar approved. It is true that the Government did not give that assurance. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking they should have given it and should give it now, but what he is now saying is something different. He is saying that the Government have refused to give an assurance that they will not alter the basis of sovereignty in Gibraltar without consulting the House. My impression is that the Government gave precisely that assurance.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) dealt with that point a little while ago. It is no use whatever the House coming back when an agreement with Spain has been signed and sealed by the Government. The House is in a very difficult position if it adjourns for the long Recess and comes back and finds that in the meantime the Government have sold another territory down the river. That is what we are afraid of. I have no very great hopes of this because of the very great reluctance of certain hon. Members opposite to vote against their own party, but it might well be that the House would not ratify or approve an agreement which was made; but we on this


side do not wish to see any agreement entered into without consultation with the people of Gibraltar, without their agreement first, and, secondly, without the seal of approval placed upon it by this House.
I conclude by saying that it appears to me that there has been a change in the attitude and the statements of Ministers over Gibraltar in recent weeks. In May and in the early part of June a fairly strong line was taken by the Foreign Secretary about the sovereignty of Gibraltar. It has been only in recent weeks, and especially this week, that we have found Ministers—the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary—exceptionally evasive over the issue. We on this side think that the House must remain in continual and perpetual vigil till such time as we can get a clear decision from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that Gibraltar will not be sold down the river behind our backs during the Recess.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: Although it is not the subject I want to talk about I cannot resist making one slight reference in passing to the speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I fully agree that we on this side are concerned about the people of Gibraltar, but they are not the only people in the world. There are also the people of Spain who, if anyone was sold down the river, were sold down the river by this country 30 years ago. Our objection—let us make it clear—on this side of the House would be to handing over the people of Gibraltar to Spain, and our objection would be because we are not impressed by the nature of the Spanish Government.
I hope that when we are talking about selling or not selling people down the river we shall, in addition to being concerned about the Gibraltarians—a small minority compared with the number in Southern Rhodesia—also be concerned with the majority of the people in the latter country.
I should like to turn to the subject I was intending to speak about. I, among others, I think, on this side of the House, am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House who has just taken over this most important office. I hope I am not treading on any corns

here, but I hope that he will be very forthcoming on a subject which is very dear to us on this side, namely Parliamentary and institutional reform. It was some years ago that I was at a seminar given at Oxford by my right hon. Friend on the subject of interest groups being involved in decision-making in Governments. I had the temerity—and perhaps the foolhardiness, I suspect, in recollecting this incident—to make a point against him and was firmly rebuked with the final statement, "The difference between us is that I am a democrat and you are not."
At this moment we are not concerned about where I stand on these matters but a good number of us are very concerned about where my right hon. Friend stands. The case for institutional reform is something for which it is difficult to get a ready hearing. People say that what matters is policy and that the institutions through which policy is to be affected do not matter. It is my contention that it is the institutions that matter and I have been depressed by the fact that, in the three or four months since this Session began, we have not had a chance to discuss institutional reform.
I would join with those hon. Members opposite who regret that the House is going into recess were it not that, on reflection, I suspect that the cause of institutional reform might be better advanced by the Government using the next two months perhaps to bring forward some proposals along these lines when the House reassembles.
What proposals might the Government at that time, having used the Recess for mature reflection, decide to bring forward? First, it is now time that we made some progress in the further use of Standing Committees. We were all excited when the Prime Minister pledged that the Mother of Parliaments would use much more than hitherto this kind of standing specialist committee, but we have been a little disappointed since because the negotiations have been going on extremely slowly between the two Front Benches. I am sorry that, instead of holding talks through the usual channels with the Front Bench opposite—which I suspect is not really interested in reform in this matter—the Prime Minister did not consult us on the back benches behind him.
What we want with this kind of reform is a set-up in which hon. Members with specialist knowledge can use their knowledge. It is absurd that an hon. Member who comes to the House with a certain specialist knowledge which could be of use to the country, Parliament and the Government, should, because of the procedures of the House, be unable to make use of it.
Secondly, it is about time that we took some steps to reform the nature of the links between hon. Members and members of the Civil Service. We all know the constitutional rules on this. On 8th February, the Prime Minister said:
Civil Servants, however eminent, remain the confidential advisers of Ministers, who alone are answerable to Parliament for policy; and we do not envisage any change in this fundamental feature of our Parliamentary system of democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 210.]
That was a clear statement, and we know where we stand. But despite this it should be possible to increase the links between hon. Members and members of the Civil Service.
It is not always considered the right thing to quote examples of other Parliaments, but I am sure that members of the United States Congress are not the more ignorant for the fact that, in their standing specialist committees, they have full power to call for persons and papers and those persons can be members of the United States Civil Service. I know that there is a rather different system of government there, but it does not seem to me that it is a good thing that hon. Members of this House should be kept ignorant in this way.
It may be that, in some subjects such as defence, certain rules of secrecy will be necessary but that is something the Government could well look at because, although Parliamentary Questions and speeches by back benchers can be a nuisance, I am sure that, on reflection, my right hon. Friends would prefer those speeches to be well informed because Members had access to civil servants rather than badly informed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his argument to the question whether we should adjourn tomorrow until 18th October.

Mr. Henig: I was about to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Another reform which I am sure you will agree is most relevant to the subject relates to the timing of sittings of this House. For some weeks we have had a perpetual——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his argument to the Question before the House—which is whether we should adjourn tomorrow until 18th October.

Mr. Henig: With respect, that is what I was about to do. I was going to say that we have heard right hon. Members opposite persistently asking the Leader of the House when the House was to adjourn for the Summer Recess and have constantly had the reply—usually greeted with derision opposite—that it would be when the House had fulfilled a certain amount of its business. That has been going on for some time because we have this ancient tradition of a huge Parliamentary Summer Recess.
The old tradition was, I think, to have a three-month Summer Recess which was supposed to be sacrosanct. The trouble is that, when we have a lot of extra business—and really the business of the House is much too important to be done in a small number of months in the year—what tends to happen is that part of the Recess is knocked away at the beginning rather than at the end.
It seems to me that it would be much more sensible for this House to have a Recess which lasted, say, from 15th August to 15th September and, of course, in an emergency we might even lose that. The idea of a three-month Recess is today quite ludicrous and I do not see why the Government should be apologising for the fact that we are having only two months this year.
Another matter which I hope you will agree is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that one hopes that when the Government have used this long period of reflection, they will come back with proposals to deal with the system of voting in the House. In recent weeks we have heard complaints of shortage of time to discuss certain subjects—for example, from the Opposition on the question of the Selective Employment Tax. But it seemed to me to be a subject for amusement—or perhaps sorrow—that during the whole time they


were grumbling, we were frequently trooping through the Division Lobbies, sometimes, perhaps, for 10 minutes in every hour. Yet it was known in advance what the result would be.
I would also hope that, at the end of the long Recess, the Government would come up with some really radical proposals for dealing with the question of the allocation of time in this House. The last time I was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, was in the debate on the allocation of time for the Selective Employment Payments Act. Such a debate, I gather, is a jamboree which takes place fairly regularly—every couple of years or so—when a Government put forward a timetable Motion, with the Opposition objecting that it is an infringement of liberty. It is time to get beyond this. When they come back the Government should decide to bring forward——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate on this Motion what the Government ought to do when they come back.

Mr. Henig: I am sorry to have strayed beyond Order, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to suggest that, unless the Government had a fairly long time in recess—two months instead of one month—they would not really have time to think about this important subject. I am not certain whether this gets round the point or not. If it does not, I apologise from necessity and withdraw from it.
There is another subject particularly relevant in view of the Ministerial changes. The Government will need a lot of time to think about the question of the relationship between this House and the Civil Service.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss, even under the ingenious method that the hon. Member is seeking to adopt, the kind of subject that he wants Parliament to debate when it comes back after the Recess.

Mr. Henig: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; it seems that I am now effectively hemmed in on all sides in my attempt to debate this issue. Therefore, I simply say that this House has now been sitting for three or four months and it is to have a two months' Recess. Many hon. Members have suggested that this is too long,

because so many subjects remain to be spoken about. The Government can effectively answer this argument—and this relates to my question on procedure as well as to the points raised by other hon. Members in connection with Gibraltar, and so on—if, at the end of this Recess, they are in a position so to organise the business of the House for next Session and subsequent Sessions that it is in a position to discuss all these matters.

6.21 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to keep within your rigorous Ruling on the question whether we should or should not adjourn, and should have a longer or shorter Adjournment. I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for having moved from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to his present position as Leader of the House, but he will have to change his attitude a little. My hon. Friends and I have always felt that he was one of the most hyper-political creatures, and that he adopted a hyper-political outlook in respect of almost every policy he advocated in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
My instinct is that the right hon. Gentleman had a fairly close relationship with the G.L.C., and as he is now moving to a more honourable position and one of greater responsibility, in that he will be speaking for both sides of the House, in an almost a-political atmosphere, I hope that he will drop his previous attitude.
I suggest that it is a good idea to have a Recess, because it is clear that Ministers are in need of a rest. I am told that a change of job is as good as a rest, and as the Minister has had a change of job he may not need a rest. But the Prime Minister is clearly in need of a rest. As one gets tired two things happen: one's memory lapses, and one tends to revert to old habits and old arguments, which is what we have had in the House recently from the Prime Minister.
I want particularly to draw the attention of the House to a Question concerning Gibraltar which was raised the day before yesterday. I refer to this because we are just about to see the discussions on Gibraltar resumed. It is, therefore, important that the background of these discussions should be clearly understood. The day before yesterday,


in answer to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
I attacked the frigate deal because of the Gibraltar situation …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1387.]
The Prime Minister's memory is at fault. He did not attack the frigate deal because of the Gibraltar situation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on this Motion the Prime Minister's remarks about frigates. The hon. Gentleman must link what he has to say to the question whether we should adjourn to the date to which we are proposing to adjourn.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I only wish that you had been in the Chair earlier, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) went very wide and discussed the question of Suez, Vietnam and goodness knows what else.
We are now reconvening the discussions on Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend asked for some reassurances on this matter. I was at pains to point out that the foundation of the quarrel which now exists between this country and Spain, and particularly between Spain and Gibraltar, is not as painted by the Prime Minister. I thought it important that the record should be put right, so that these discussions should be more productive and so that, if a change is made, the House can be recalled in the middle of the adjournment.
It is wrong to suggest that this argument started—as the Prime Minister went on to suggest—with the decision by Spain to put pressure on Gibraltar. To suggest that the pressure occurred before the frigate deal was started is not true; the frigate deal had been going on for many years. The Spaniards desired to re-equip their whole fleet, and when I was an Admiralty Minister I was responsible in some way for the negotiations. They had been going on for years before real pressure was put upon Gibraltar, for the first time, in 1964. These deals, which cost us £14 million to cancel, could have led to the entire renewal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not questioning a word of what the hon. Member is saying. He has a right to his opinion. But we are deciding whether or not to

adjourn to a certain date, and he must link his remarks to that point.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Mr. Speaker, you are much tougher on Members than was your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
We are about to start discussions with Spain, and it is important that the climate of those discussions and their historical background should be clearly understood and known by the Government of the day, who are now responsible for them. The Prime Minister's words about this background are completely inaccurate. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale used the word "lie" earlier, and was not stopped. There are gross inaccuracies in the history as given to the House by the Prime Minister only the day before yesterday. This is bound to influence the climate of opinion in these very important discussions.
It is not true to say that the cancellation of this deal arose because of the feelings between Gibraltar and Spain, or that the bringing of pressure to bear on Gibraltar occurred before the deal was called off; it was called off in July, 1964, and the pressure on Gibraltar built up in October of the same year. I should like to quote chapter and verse, but in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to transgress. Nevertheless, I hope that this matter will be put right, and that we can get the Prime Minister to accept the historical facts.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I offer my personal congratulations to my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House on his appointment. We are old friends and colleagues, and I hope he will not think it a presumption on my part if I offer my congratulations in this situation. For many years, whichever party has been in government and whichever party has been in opposition it has been customary for Motions for the Adjournment to be opposed. They are rarely opposed seriously, and on this occasion I doubt whether any hon. Member will challenge the matter to a Division. The only question that is really in order is whether there is a valid reason against adopting a Motion which we are invited to adopt or for opposing a valid reason suggesting that we do not oppose it.
Only three questions have been raised which could possibly be within the rules of order on the Motion that we are discussing. The first is Gibraltar, the second Rhodesia, and the third Vietnam. I suggest that in the case of Rhodesia and Gibraltar the House may be satisfied with the assurances that the Government have already given. In both cases they have said that there will be no change in the situation without the authority of Parliament and without the recall of Parliament—or until Parliament reassembles—so that it may give or withhold its approval to any suggested change.
I agree that, in the case of Spain, the Government might reasonably have given the further undertaking for which they were pressed, that in no circumstances would they agree to a change in sovereignty which did not carry the support of the Spanish people. As we have repeatedly said over the last 12 months we will not support any constitution in Rhodesia which does not command the support or approval of the majority of the population, it is not unreasonable to say to the Government that what they said on behalf of the people of that country they could also say on behalf of Spain. No one can seriously argue that their failure to do so is a valid reason for refusing them the Motion. They have said that they will do nothing until Parliament has approved whatever they propose and I think that Parliament should be satisfied with that.
However, this is not the case on questions raised about Vietnam. Catastrophic things could happen over Vietnam before Parliament reassembles, if the Motion is carried. It is reasonable for some of us to say to the Government, as we would be inclined to do, that, unless they can give us reasonable assurances on this point, we would not be in favour of adjourning for so long.
If the proposals of President Ky were adopted, that would be only with the support of the American troops. There has been considerable controversy in this country about whether the Government were right to give the support which they gave 18 months ago to the original escalation of the war. I am not suggesting that it is in order to debate that now, but subsequent events have shown that that 100 per cent. support was not unlimited

in time or unconditional. Subsequent actions took place which the Government thought justified their dissociating themselves from American action. What we ask them to do now, before we consent to go away for two months, is to undertake that they will dissociate themselves from any further escalation in the direction suggested by the present so-called Government of South Vietnam.
If they do not give us such an assurance, they are asking the House to go away for two months in circumstances which conceivably—I do not say "probably"—could mean that we would, against our will, be involved in a world war on the wrong side, without being consulted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong side?"] Yes, on the wrong side——

Mr. Patrick Wall: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman would like us to be on the side of the Communist Chinese?

Mr. Silverman: I am saying nothing which any hon. Member need get excited about. I am saying that, if we were to support an action which might lead to a world war, which we did not want and which was against our will and in which it would be at least doubtful whether the Americans were on the right side, if we had to be dragged in—if we were dragged in—on that side, we might, without being consulted be in a world war which we did not want, about which we had not been consulted and on the side of which, on the whole, we least approved. I think that every hon. Member must see the danger to which that could lead.
I am asking for an assurance—I see no reason why the Government should have any difficulty about giving it—that, if there is any reasonable probability, any forlorn or remote chance at all, that the Americans might further escalate the war along the lines against which American Congressmen have recently protested, we should either immediately dissociate this country from any such policy or recall the House so that we may discuss here what the Government and the country ought to do in such a situation. I am not asking for any further undertaking than that, but I do say that I would certainly not support a Motion for the Adjournment for two months in these circumstances without such an assurance.

6.36 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I would agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in one thing, that the three subjects which he listed at the start of his speech are certainly highly relevant to the question whether or not we should adjourn. However, he was a little arrogant in assuming that those were the only three subjects which could possibly be relevant. I hope that, when I have finished, he will see that one or two other matters are also relevant.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council and I have exchanged pleasantries across the Floor of the House from time to time since 1945. There was an occasion when he referred to me as a "Blimp" and I took that as a compliment, coming from him. In wishing him well, I would add that I hope that he will always remember that ordinary Members on both sides are highly sensitive to those who sometimes give the impression that they have little time for those whom they consider to be less intelligent than themselves. Therefore, I hope that, as Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make all parties, on both sides of the House, realise that he has the rights of hon. Members very much in mind.
We have had a historical review in your absence from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to do no more muck-raking. But there has been some muck-raking today. I suppose that it is inevitable that, when a Government's record has been undistinguished—to put it mildly—a few red herrings should be dragged out from the past to put the eye off the major ball.
However tired we are, and however overstrained are the unfortunate staff who attempt to serve our needs, I still say that there are many reasons why we should remain in session. Although Gibraltar is certainly one of them, and it is very important that one current rumour should be banished before we adjourn, there are other matters. I have little more to add to a discussion of Gibraltar than what has already been said by my hon. Friends and by some hon. Members opposite, but there is one current rumour which must be banished quickly. That is the suggestion that the reason that the Government are being so

equivocal on this issue is because the United States wishes to change its strategy in the Mediterranean and to come to an understanding with Franco, and that Franco's price for reaching that understanding is Britain trading in the rights of the Gibraltarians.
That rumour is being put about in this place as well as outside. I hope, therefore, that the Government will once and for all scotch that rumour. If it is true, or anything like true, it is certainly something which calls for a major exercise by the Foreign Office while we are away. If it is not true, it is not only doing a great deal of damage to the United Kingdom's relationships with Spain, but must also be causing grave concern to Gibraltarians.
I hope that the Government stand by the last paragraph of the White Paper and will not be bullied by the Americans, by General Franco or by anyone else over the future of Gibraltar, but will do what they believe to be right and which the Gibraltarians are satisfied fully protects the interests of Gibraltarians. That is all I shall say about Gibraltar, and it is probably more than enough for the right hon. Gentleman.
There is one other issue which I would like to raise additional to the subjects mentioned by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. If we had not been debating the Summer Adjournment today, we should have been debating the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Bill. Rather unusually, even before the Bill has been debated, the Government have selected two of the principal officers who are to run that corporation. One is the chairman of a well-known textile company and the other is a distinguished merchant banker. I regard both gentlemen as either extremely gullible, or indulging in a deliberate exercise to bring about creeping Socialism. That is my opinion of their acceptance of the appointments.
It is bad enough to have a chairman and another principal officer of a corporation, which has not yet been put on the Statute Book, appointed by the Government, but if, during the Recess, we are also to witness the appointment of other principal officers of this corporation, which may or may not be brought into being according to whether Parliament passes the Bill, we shall be reaching the point where Parliament is being made


utterly ludicrous and the rights of hon. Members to decide whether such a corporation should exist are being undermined.
As it appears that one of the main matters which we shall be discussing during the first week of our return will be this Bill, according to the business statement yesterday, I hope that we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that no further anticipatory appointments will be made, so that we can go into the merits of whether there should be such a corporation.
Finally, during the last few months we have witnessed an exercise of political tergiversation greater than anything which has happened since the time of Robert Peel, when he was castigated by Disraeli for tergiversation over the Corn Laws. Promises have been broken by the Government almost daily and sometimes we have felt that we have had to sympathise with the appalling difficulties into which the Government have got themselves, largely through their own fault and their own policy.
I hope that during the Recess the Government will tell the country a little more of the truth than they have so far about the position of our national affairs. I do not believe that we have begun to hear the truth and I hope that we shall in future.
The accusation might well be made today, as it was once made in the 1945–50 Parliament by a distinguished United States Treasury official, who said of a certain previous Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Who is this guy? We used to be able to trust Bank of England figures; these, we know, are 'phoney'".
I hope that during the Recess we shall be told what the true figures are and that there will be no more of this deliberate deception of the British people.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crossman.

Mr. Neil Marten: On a point of order. A number of backbenchers still wish to speak in this debate, on which there is no time limit. Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman is about to intervene in a helpful way, perhaps about Gibraltar, or does his rising mean that the debate is to come to an end? There

are many things which I would like to say. I would like to welcome him to his new job and I would like to deal with the question——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am seized of the point of order without the hon. Gentleman amplifying it further. I have called the right hon. Gentleman who seeks to intervene. What happens after that I know not yet.

Lord Balniel: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman intervening to wind up the debate, or is this just an intervention which will allow the debate to continue? Is it the Government's intention to move the Closure after he has spoken? I am bound to ask him whether he has noticed that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like to speak. I had intended to begin my speech from the Opposition Front Bench by congratulating him on his appointment as Leader of the House, but I am bound to say that this is one of the most disastrous openings for a Leader of the House, curtailing of the rights of discussion, which we have seen for a very long time.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this juncture in the debate. I thought that until now we had had a reasonably good-humoured and typical debate of this kind which had gone on in much the usual way and under some of the usual difficulties. I thought that it was relatively good humoured; even my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he was in a gentle humour. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and all those other Members who have been sympathetic to me in my new responsibilities for the kind things they have said, because I know that after that I cannot expect, and do not want, any quarter from them.
I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I appreciate the difficulties of this debate. There are matters on which individual hon. Members genuinely feel strongly. I have done it myself. One feels that one cannot let the House go for fear that something disastrous happens. Hon. Members vary about what


those things may be, but they hold such views sincerely. One also feels that such an occasion is a good chance to make a last protest, so far as one can within the limits of order, and I congratulate hon. Members on the skill with which they have taken their opportunity.
When my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General intervened with memories of how he had been cribbed and confined in May, 1964, I thought that I was cribbed and confined, too. As a matter of fact, I welcome the somewhat greater licence which we have had today. It brought out one problem of the debate which was illustrated when the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that I was incompetent to answer the 40 or 50 big questions of policy which had been put to me. That is true. No Minister could conceivably answer all the questions which have been put today, because they were not all concerned with this Motion, but with general issues of policy on which I could not reply.
What I can and must reply to are the serious arguments put to me for not letting the House go without certain assurances and statements. I will start with those and begin with some which were put to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was good humoured, apart from one sentence which was repeated by one or two of his hon. Friends and to which I would like to reply. Having congratulated me, he suddenly said that as far as he could see, with me as Leader of the House, there was no chance of both sides getting fair treatment. He gave the remarkable reason that I was born a political animal. This seems to be a very American definition of a politician. It is in America that politicians are thought of in that way. I always thought that in England "political animal" meant one who was a politician, but politicians can be fair. A man may be a party man—and the right hon. Gentleman and I are both party men—and yet on all the issues which matter in Parliament loyalty to party and loyalty to Parliament are not incompatible.
I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if I am as political an animal as he is we can both claim that because we are political animals we would give minorities their

fair share; and I have had somewhat greater experience in my political life of being a member of a minority than the right hon. Gentleman has had. For 18 years I was a member of various minorities and I have a penchant for and bias in favour of minorities, certainly until recent experience, and against majorities.
I must admit that during the last 18 months of responsibility my attitude towards majorities has changed a little, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that office does not altogether destroy that sympathy with minorities and my conviction that our Parliamentary system can only work in the last resort if we recognise fairness and recognise that we agree, above all, about the importance of making our system work.

Mr. Heath: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman realises that he will be put to the test the moment he sits down.

Mr. Crossman: That is quite true, and I fully appreciate it. I know very well that it is a test to which the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Patronage Secretary in the old days, was subjected to rather frequently—yet always with the same result, which I shall not, at this point, anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman and I understand each other and I assure him that I do not mind his making that taunt.
The Leader of the Opposition asked a number of questions which we must consider seriously. He asked, first, for an assurance about Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill. I, for my part, wish to emphasise what has already been explained. My right hon. Friend who was until a few hours ago the First Secretary continually emphasised that the Government were fighting for the voluntary principle and that they were anxious to have the reserve power contained in the Bill to make it work. My right hon. Friend said that time and again and, on each occasion, meant what he said.
As a member of the Cabinet, I support the Bill for that reason and I assure the Leader of the Opposition that what the First Secretary has emphasised on so many occasions is the point that I wish to emphasise now. That is why the special limitation of 28 days was written into the Bill, remembering that Part IV cannot come into force without an affirmative Order being brought before the


House and that it is not just 28 days but 28 calendar days. We mean what we say about the Bill and what the First Secretary has emphasised so frequently on this subject.
I was then asked for an assurance about housing. I have some difficulty in answering this one, remembering who was the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government. I admit to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the Leader of the Opposition that, in retrospect, I failed—or, since I am speaking about the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government, perhaps I should say "he failed"—to tell the House about mortgages and that perhaps I should have given that information before making my speech to the builders, even though it got a good Press; indeed, the whole of it was printed. Although it was so widely publicised, I accept, as does the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government, that that is no substitute for making a statement to the House. Perhaps it would be apt if I quoted some of what I said on that occasion, so that it will at least be on the record. I said:
… we shall be introducing the necessary legislation in the autumn. Some details have still to be settled in further consultation with the building societies and other lending bodies, and we shall publish with the Bill a White Paper which will explain fully how the scheme will work".
Then, concerning retrospection, I said:
I have heard suggestions that some would-be purchasers have held off from buying houses because of uncertainty about the Government's intentions. I want to make it quite clear that there is no point in deferring purchase on this account. The legislation which will be introduced later this year will provide that owner-occupiers"—
and this answers the right hon. Gentlemans question—
who already have mortgages will be able to transfer to option mortgages and get the benefit of the Government subsidy, if they consider it to be to their advantage to do so. Anyone wanting to buy a house now can be assured that the Government are going to carry through their scheme for helping owner-occupiers; and that it can help them whether they take out a mortgage now, or after the scheme comes into operation".
That is the answer. The switch means that retrospection is unnecessary in that particular case.
I turn from those subjects of the home side to the questions which have been

asked about various aspects of foreign policy, particularly Rhodesia.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that I asked him another question about mortgages. I asked what assurances he could give about the supply of funds to building societies in view of the problems caused by interest rates during the Recess.

Mr. Crossman: I considered that that was not the kind of matter which would be likely to decide whether or not we should adjourn for the Summer Recess. I do not think, therefore, that giving an assurance or making a statement on this subject would be likely to affect the Motion, since we can debate the matter; in other words, it is not as urgent an issue as some of the others that have been raised and is, therefore, not a matter which would be likely to prevent us from rising for the Recess.
I come to the questions put to me about Rhodesia, Gibraltar and Vietnam, because the majority of hon. Members have felt that around these three issues is centred the main concern about rising for the Recess. On Rhodesia, I do not think that I need say more than repeat the absolute and specific assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 8th August, when he said:
Since we are approaching the Recess I should like to make it clear that, although there is at present no indication that a settlement is likely within the next two months, nevertheless, if there were any developments during the Recess making possible a settlement before the time fixed for the assembly of Parliament, we should regard this as sufficiently important to advise you, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 117, that the House should be recalled …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1018.]
In terms of the Motion before the House, no hon. Member could ask for a more specific assurance than that. My right hon. Friend's assurance was to the effect that if anything like that occurred—although the Government think it unlikely—the Government would specifically recall the House for that particular reason. No Government could be more specific.
Many questions were asked about Rhodesia and a number of speeches were made concerning Gibraltar. They varied from the careful and moderate language used by the Leader of the Opposition to


the more extreme remarks of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). That hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong for the House to recess without knowing what was being discussed and what might possibly be agreed. If we are to say that no Government should negotiate during a Recess without, in advance, telling the House everything that might be said and done, all negotiations would be impossible during all Recesses. However, I take it that those extremities of the back benches opposite are not the reasons why other hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they are seriously worried on this issue.

Mr. Braine: As the Leader of the House has referred to words that I used, does he recall that I was saying that it had to be presumed that the talks would take place against the background of increasing pressures from Spain? Is he aware that I said that I found it extremely difficult to understand how the Government could enter into these talks in that kind of atmosphere, and that it was in those circumstances that I felt that the right hon. Gentleman should give the House an assurance on these matters?

Mr. Crossman: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech carefully. He said—and he made his point clear—that his view was that he had little confidence in the Government and that, rather than have any negotiations at all going on, he would prefer to make such negotiations impossible. That would be the effect of meeting the demands he made. I admit that it may be a reasonable point of view for the hon. Gentleman to take, but it is certainly a point of view that would be unlikely to receive the agreement of the House in general.
I was asked to give the specific assurance that the Gibraltarians would not be sold down the river. This continued assertion that the present Government are determined to sell Gibraltar down the river rings slightly forensic in view of the Prime Minister's explicit statement that there is no repudiation of the White Paper, a document which was absolutely clear. Having said that, I really do not understand what all the froth and bother is about. That statement having been made, I assure the House in good faith,

these negotiations should be given a chance of success.
A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the situation in Vietnam and I agree with them that this is the area of the world—this area and not Gibraltar—where catastrophe and disaster could occur. This is the area about which all of us, whatever our positions, have a right to be alarmed and to express our fears and doubts, for we must all be constantly aware of the danger to the world of war breaking out. I therefore respect any hon. Member who asks, "Will you give the assurance that Her Majesty's Government share our alarm and are prepared to act?"
While I cannot give my hon. Friends an assurance that the Government will do all that they want them to do, if the kind of disaster which they foresee as being possible were actually to arise, Parliament would be recalled. However, I cannot go further than that and say precisely what the Government would do.
As Leader of the House, I assure the House that if the kind of eventuality about which my hon. Friends have spoken were to arise, it would be the duty of the Government to recall Parliament, because, in that event, the rôle of Britain could be decisive. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree that in the event of there being such a crisis it would be our job to be here. I give that assurance. It is an absolute assurance.
I come to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale which, after Vietnam, might be considered a minor matter. Indeed, history is always less exciting than present eventualities. He asked about Suez—and it was interesting to note that his question was not repeated from the Opposition. I am bound to wonder what would be the result of carrying out an exposure of Suez. I share my hon. Friend's curiosity. Fresh revelations may come day by day, possibly first from M. Pineau and then from General Daya. We never know what will come next. I wonder what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) feels on this issue. Considering how fresh revelations come to light, I wonder whether it is more fun doing it this way than having the right hon. and learned Gentleman "come clean". I enjoyed it. I am looking forward to the fresh morsels that I shall


read during the Recess. But we have decided to meet my hon. Friend's point of view. We think that it would be good and healthy for Parliament to debate this subject soon after the Recess. We think that it might be arresting to have the Opposition Front Bench alerted and ready, and that it would be helpful to discuss what happened in that long ago, historic, time of November, 1956.
I was much struck by the speech, on a former occasion, of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about the precedents for inquiries of this sort. The inquiries into Mesopotamia and Gallipoli were good and sound. Without our being political animals in any sense, but in my present historical and judicious mood, I am sure that I shall receive a historical and judicious response from the Opposition for having a historical and judicious inquiry into what happened so long ago. We shall have the debate, after which we shall consider an inquiry.
I was also told that we should hold up our holidays because of the tardiness of both the Government and the Opposition on Parliamentary reform. There were earnest pleas from my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) as well as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. My conscience twinged me, because I think that we have been rather slow. We have taken our time in reflecting on the subject of the Committees and we should accelerate this. I say freely, speaking for the first time in my new capacity, that I have a strong prejudice in favour of Parliamentary reform, because I do not agree with the idea that Parliament has declined, is declining, and should decline still further. The first two parts of that are correct, and the third is a disaster. Parliament has declined, is declining, and should not decline any further.
I shall be interested to read the Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House. Television is very important, but it is not the most important issue. How we present ourselves to the public through new media of communication is secondary to the issue of what we actually do here, which is what matters, and I believe that we are right to be deeply concerned and worried about whether we are doing our job properly. We should be allowed to

have a few months' thought on this rather than to have further discussion here in an unadjourned House because it is important to consult widely and carefully, as there are great differences.
There are those of us, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, who want to restore Parliament in its pristine 18th century figure. He wants the power to seat and unseat Governments in Parliament, whereas we now believe that that power should be in the hands of the electorate. But he is not a pure 18th century man. I agree with him that we should discuss things here on the Floor of the House a great deal more and a good deal less in secret conclave in other places. This is a heathy thing to ask, for anything which we can do to have the big issues discussed in the open is all to the good, because if we are to do our function of educating the public, which is our major job, we must get the great ideas debated here and so debated outside.
Another, older function, is that of being the critic, the check, the control of the Executive. I speak as a member of the Executive here and as a Member of the House. After 18 months, I think that my former Department does need controlling. Anybody who has worked in a big Department knows that the submission of that Department's detailed work to hon. Members in a Committee who would have time to see it in detail and with understanding knows that that has much to commend it. I therefore welcome the chance of such Committees being set up. But we must take care to set them up in the right way. We cannot make them American-style committees. They must be in our tradition. We must take trouble and care on this. We are on the edge of getting it right, but do not let us set up too many Committees.
Not every Committee has a queue outside waiting to attend it. Having come from local government, I say that anybody who thinks that the municipalisation of Parliament is the be-all and end-all had better study the committee system in local government, which has become a reductio ad absurdum. Let us select the right Committees for the right things if they are to be really effective. If we are to do that, we do not want to go on with this part of the Session now. We want a bit of a rest, time to reflect and


think. The time has come—I have a feeling that the Leader of the Opposition is with me on this—when, having had this excellent debate, we should decide to adjourn.

Sir Knox Cunningham: As the Leader of the House has already said that the Prime Minister was not repudiating his White Paper, would he go a little further and say that the Government will not contemplate a transfer of sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar? If he would say that, it would be a very great help to a number of hon. Members on the question whether we shall adjourn for the Recess.

Mr. Crossman: I said that I found it difficult to feel that this agitation was not somewhat synthetic when the Prime Minister has already stated categorically that the White Paper is not being repudiated and that it includes the sentences which were quoted. I cannot see how anybody can fairly say that we are trying to sell Gibraltar down the line.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 90.

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[7.06 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orme, Stanley


Allen, Scholefield
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Anderson, Donald
Hannan, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter
Harper, Joseph
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Haseldine, Norman
Park, Trevor


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Beaney, Alan
Henig, Stanley
Redhead, Edward


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horner, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Booth, Albert
Hynd, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boyden, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roebuck, Roy


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brooks, Edwin
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Croseman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Nell
Small, William


Dickens, James
MacDermot, Niall
Snow, Julian


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslle


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McKav, Mrs. Margaret
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David (Consett)


Floud, Bernard
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
Moyle, Roland
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Albert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Garrett, W. E.
Newens, Stan
Winnick, David


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Norwood, Christopher



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Fitch and




Mr. Bishop.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bessell, Peter
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Balniel, Lord
Biffen, John
Braine, Bernard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)




Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hunt, John
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott, Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliott, R. W. (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Teeling, Sir William


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert
Thorpe, Jeremy


Foster, Sir John
Loveys, W. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lubbock, Eric
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maxwell, Hyalop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Garden, Harold
Neave, Airey



Hall-Davis A. C. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nott, John
Mr. Pym and




Mr. Younger.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn until Tuesday, 18th October, and that Tomorrow the following paragraphs shall have effect—

(1) paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), as applied by paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 3 (Friday Sittings) shall not have effect; and Proceedings on Government business may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed;
(2) Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses;
(3) when the Proceedings on any substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall have continued for a period of five and a half hours (without reckoning the time

occupied by any intervening Proceedings), then—

(a) if Mr. Speaker shall already have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid, he shall forthwith adjourn the House without putting any Question; and
(b) if Mr. Speaker shall not so have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid he shall forthwith suspend the sitting until a Message is received from the Lords, or until a Message is delivered desiring the attendance of this House in the House of Peers for the purpose of hearing a Commission read for signifying the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid; and, as soon as he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts as aforesaid, he shall forthwith adjourn the House without putting any Question:

Provided that sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall also apply if such a Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall have been withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(MACHINERY AND PLANT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 17, at end insert:
(c) for carrying on the business of a hotel or a restaurant.

Mr. Speaker: I call attention to the fact that Privilege is involved in this Amendment.

7.17 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The substantive effect of this Amendment would be to make the investment grants introduced by the Bill payable to any restaurant or hotel for the plant and machinery—that is, equipment—installed in it. We had some extensive discussions on this issue during all the stages of the Bill in this House. The Government's view remains that it would not be appropriate to give assistance to the hotel industry in this way. To pay investment grants indiscriminately in respect of all equipment in all hotels, restaurants, public houses and other such institutions would be to make a much too wide and indiscriminate use of public money.
It was very largely because the investment allowances, by a series of court decisions, could be used on such a wide scale for all sorts of equipment for which they were not originally intended that it was decided to introduce this more selective and discriminating system of investment grants. For that basic reason—and also because of the cost involved—we would not think it right to return to the former system.
It can be forcibly argued, and I entirely agree with this argument, that many hotels and other tourist institutions are playing a great part in encouraging tourists to come to this country, and are thereby earning foreign exchange. That is certainly true—indeed, it is for that

reason that the present Government have introduced, or continued, a number of schemes by which assistance is given to the hotel industry.
First, we must remember that by this Bill the initial allowance which is applicable to equipment used by hotels or restaurants is raised to 30 per cent. That is a generous level, and it will be open to all hotels all over the country, whether they are in development areas or outside them.
Secondly, hotel buildings which provide employment in development areas—and the development areas have been greatly widened so as to include, for instance, practically the whole of Scotland and Wales—will be eligible to receive the 25 per cent. building grant which applies within development areas. Thirdly, hotels are also eligible for B.O.T.A.X. C. assistance—loans, in particular—on the usual terms and conditions throughout all development areas.
In addition, I have been able to announce since the passage of the Bill through this House that, in view of the overseas earnings which many hotels help to bring to this country, the Government are introducing a further and new scheme for development loans from public money to a total of £5 million. It will be available for any development scheme for a hotel where it can be shown that there are real and good prospects of earnings from overseas tourists. We are basing our policy on a more selective approach, and we shall make this money available where it is clear that overseas earnings are in prospect. In addition to all that, I would remind the House that the Government are, in any case, paying a grant of £2 million a year to the British Travel Association, whose job is to encourage and assist the British tourist industry.
All these forms of assistance together are a major contribution to this industry and the recognition by the Government of the value of its services, but we must remember that, of the total earnings of the British hotel and catering industry, rather less than 10 per cent. accrues in the form of foreign exchange. That is a very much lower percentage than the nearer to 25 per cent. earned in exports by manufacturing industry. In my view, that real distinction justifies the basic principle of the Bill that the investment grants should be concentrated on plant


and equipment used in manufacturing industry, and also justifies the very considerable help and assistance to the industry which the Government propose to give in the way I have described.
For all those reasons, it seems to us right to confine the investment grant broadly to manufacturing industry in the way provided in the Bill and to give our help selectively to the hotel industry in the other ways I have described. I therefore ask the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The President of the Board of Trade will not be surprised that his attitude to this Amendment comes as a great disappointment to my right hon. and hon. Friends. He has based his case on his view it is not appropriate to assist hotels in this way. He has once again drawn attention to the fact that court decisions had resulted in investment allowances being paid for a much wider range of equipment throughout the whole industry—including the manufacturing and extractive industries, and so on—than might have seemed to be in accordance with the original intentions. He said that that was the basis of the policy of changing over to these grants.
From there on he seemed wholly illogical in saying that, therefore, this was not an appropriate method to apply to hotels, because the discretion that resides in the President of the Board of Trade and the selectivity that can be used, answer the problem of preventing grant being payable in respect of certain types of equipment which, in the past, attracted investment allowance and have, at times, been the subject of a considerable amount of criticism. He argued that he has produced a system ideally suited for selectivity in grants of Government assistance which the hotel industry requires.
He went on to indicate the other types of assistance that were available to the hotel industry—the increased initial allowance, and the 25 per cent. building allowance in the development areas. One of the big needs of the development areas—and here one thinks immediately of the Highlands, the South-West, and so on—is every bit as much for modernisation of existing hotels as for the building of new ones, but, in most cases, when one

modernises an hotel one does not increase employment—indeed, by putting in modern facilities and equipment one may actually be reducing the employment available. That, together with the £5 million maximum loan at a favourable rate, contrasted with something like £20 million extra burden in the form of the S.E.T. and the loss amounting to many times that amount as a result of the withdrawal of the investment allowances, cannot be regarded in any sense as more than a drop in the bucket by way of recompense.
We come back to the ludicrous nature of the distinction that the Government have drawn for the purposes of this legislation and the S.E.T. between manufacturing industries and others. That was well brought home this afternoon by the Prime Minister who, in reply to a Question, said that all hotels do not contribute to earnings of foreign exchange. That is very true, but all manufacturers do not contribute to exports. Many manufacturers produce articles whose utility is not always immediately obvious.
It was the Prime Minister himself who referred to "candyfloss" as epitomising the frivolous and the futile, yet those who make candyfloss—I am not quite certain what it is, but I believe it is not a very useful or permanent substance—will under this Bill qualify for a grant for the machinery for making it. Here we have the height of absurdity in drawing such a distinction. The President of the Board of Trade has wholly failed to make out a case for the rejection of this Lords Amendment, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against his Motion.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I think it right at the start to declare an interest in this matter. I am a director of companies owning and operating hotels and restaurants, a fact which by now will be known to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The other place has given us an opportunity to debate this Amendment with the benefit of up-to-date knowledge of decisions which are being taken by the hotel industry in the light of the Government's declared policy. These are decisions which should be taken into account by this House when deciding whether to accept or to reject this


Amendment. I had intended to restrict my speech to what I considered to be the most vital points, but the President of the Board of Trade has again repeated one canard which I cannot allow to go without comment.
He referred to the fact that only 10 per cent. of the turnover of the hotel and catering industry was drawn from overseas visitors. I point out that in this year so far as the figures available to date indicate, when Commonwealth visitors are included the estimate of increased spending by overseas visitors on fares and in this country will be approximately £35 million and the total benefit to our balance of payments from spending by overseas visitors in 1966 will amount to £350 million.

Mr. Jay: I gather that that is inclusive of what is spent on fares and not just in hotels and restaurants?

Mr. Hall-Davis: That is quite true and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the proportion is roughly three-to-two of spending in this country and on fares generally, but fares spent with British carriers benefit our balance of payments. In the light of these figures the Government only make themselves ridiculous when they go on repeating the statement about only 10 per cent. of the hotels and catering trade turnover being concerned with overseas visitors. This was said by their spokesman in another place and it has been reiterated by the President of the Board of Trade this evening. It is absolute figures and the rate of growth which should be looked at in assessing the industry's contribution to balance of payments.
According to the Government spokesman in another place, investment expenditure by the hotel and catering industry on plant and equipment in 1964 was of the order of £16 million. I calculate that the cost of the new investment grant, if it were applied to this expenditure and allowing for some increase in the level of costs since 1964 and the higher rate in development areas would have been of the order of £4 million a year. When this £4 million is set against the £35 million increase in overseas earnings in a single year and the total spending by overseas visitors, including that spent with British carriers, is it any wonder that the hotel and catering industry feels

that it has been harshly and foolishly treated by the Government?
This is one aspect of the background to our discussion of this Amendment. I turn to another aspect of the background, one which again was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. That is the Government's promised scheme of assistance to the hotel industry by means of loans. I hope that the House will bear with me while I make a few brief comments on this scheme in the hope that they will be helpful in due course to the Government and to the industry. The Government's proposals to help the industry by means of loans shows every sign of hasty preparation and considerable lack of understanding of the circumstances and needs of the hotel industry.
Basically, the proposals are on too small a scale to encourage the construction of large hotels. The qualifying figure is set too high to be of assistance to small hotels in addition to which the scheme is full of defects of detail. It is certainly no substitute for the benefits which the Amendments we are discussing would bring to the industry. I shall enlarge the criticism that the proposals are on too small a scale. I have seen estimates by those well qualified to make them that to cater for 4 million overseas visitors in 1970 compared with this year's 3 million an extra 10,000 hotel bedrooms will be required. Assuming that 7,500 are provided in new hotels at an average cost of £7,000 and 2,500 in extensions to existing hotels at a cost of £3,000 the total expenditure required is £60 million.
It is against this scale of required investment that we must view the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to advance £5 million for a trial period of one year. Hotel planning is a long-term process involving years of preparation. Unless the President of the Board of Trade can assure the industry that any scheme of assistance will be maintained at least for five years it will be of little value. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme has many other unsatisfactory features. To set a minimum level of loan of £10,000 combined with a maximum rate of 50 per cent. of the cost will make it impossible to qualify for a loan in respect of almost every project costing under £25,000. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of almost every project of this


kind the cost of furniture, furnishings and other items and equipment amounts to 25 per cent. of the cost of the structural work. So even where loans are made at the maximum rate they would meet 40 per cent., not 50 per cent. of the total cost.
There are a great many small hotels in areas visited by tourists which could not contemplate and indeed could not justify expenditure of £25,000 so the scheme will not help them at all. Then there is the question of repayment. If it is the intention of the Government that there should be an annual repayment inclusive of principal and interest then a borrowing at 6 per cent. repayable over 15 years would require an annual repayment of principal and interest of approximately 10·3 per cent. with a net cost in the first year of 7·9 per cent. reaching virtually 10 per cent. in the last year.
Few hotel undertakings could rely on new projects generating in their early years a sufficient cash flow to provide for such repayments and at the same time to service the other capital invested in the project. In considering the relative advantages of the Government's proposals with those in the Amendment there is the question of security for the loan to be considered. If security is needed and it is to take the form of a first charge on the property I am certain that many reputable companies will be unable to start projects if they have to give the Government a first charge.
I trust that these are points which the right hon. Gentleman will consider as indicating the weaknesses of his proposals and that he will discuss them with the "Little Neddy" for the industry at an early date.
So far I have been engaged in the field of argument, opinion and conjecture. I now turn to the concrete evidence we have available of the effect which Government policy is having upon the provision of new hotel accommodation. The wisdom of our decision on this Amendment will be judged by whether the construction, extension and improvement of hotel accommodation continues or is checked. All the evidence is pointing in one direction and the Government surely cannot disregard it.
The annual statement of the Chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries Ltd.

appeared in the Press yesterday. At the end of a long section dealing with the effect of the Government's policy on the hotel and tourist industry—a section which I commend to the President of the Board of Trade—Sir William McEwan Younger stated:
In particular, so long as these conditions prevail, we will only in quite exceptional circumstances embark on new construction or costly modernisation of major hotels.
Another of the country's largest hotel groups—I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the name afterwards if he wishes—had in hand a programme of investment in expansion and improvement of hotel accommodation involving an outlay of £2 million a year. It has now decided to call a halt for the time being to the sanctioning of all new projects under its development programme. This is what is actually happening and has a direct bearing on the Amendment.
I want finally to quote some words of Sir Geoffrey Crowther, Chairman of Trust Houses, which appeared in the Daily Mail on 29th July:
I do not believe that the Government has taken a deliberate dead set against hotels. It simply did not realise what it was doing to an industry which is one of the country's chief earners of foreign currency.
I share Sir Geoffrey Crowther's views. I am obliged, however, to add the words of the popular song:
When will they ever learn,
When will they ever learn?
If the Government intend to reject the Amendment, I hope that they will make it clear—and this is a plea to the right hon. Gentleman—that they do not regard themselves as irrevocably committed to the proposals announced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on 26th July. I am sure that something more beneficial can be worked out between the industry and the Government which embraces grants as well as loans and which worthily recognises the whole industry's valuable contribution to our balance of payments.

Mr. John Hynd: I have been listening with some interest to the dissertation of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis). As I am not at all informed about the economics of the industry and am rather puzzled, I would like to have some further information from those who


are informed about it. The impression which I got as a layman was that there was something curiously wrong with the argument. It might have helped us if the hon. Gentleman had told us what were the fortunes of the hotels in which he was directly interested, so that one could see just how serious the situation was.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that one of them was erected in what was then a development area, and I can assure him, because it is public knowledge to my shareholders and locally, that it has given a very minimal return on a capital invested. Whoever has had the benefit, it has not been the hotel company.

Mr. Hynd: That is precisely what puzzles me about it, because the hon. Gentleman was talking about the tremendous pressure on hotel accommodation, particularly from tourists to this country. I should have thought that if there was this tremendous demand, the hotel industry would be doing well out of it. I am rather concerned about why it is not.
Normally, when one is asking for Government subsidies for a private concern, it is in order to assist that concern to attract business. In this case, it seems that the business is there, but that the hotel industry is either unable to cater for it, or is only anxious to get public money in order to supplement what it can now make out of the business. We hear much talk from hon. Members opposite about free enterprise and about those who take the risks being entitled to their rewards, and so on, which seems to be rather difficult to fit with their present arguments and constant demands for more and more public subsidies for a purely private enterprise activity.
It is because of that that I ask for further information. I am not making any assertions, but there are many laymen on this subject in the House, and I am sure that I shall be asked in my constituency why it is necessary for an industry, which itself says that it is pressed with more and more business, to have a public subsidy and why it is not capable of absorbing that business and not able to pay its way.

Mr. Corfield: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that this argument applies to every industry in Sheffield, part of which he represents, which gets grants under the Bill. What we are objecting to is the discrimination between Sheffield manufacturers and hoteliers, both of whom make valuable contributions to the economy, although it would be difficult to distinguish the more valuable.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hynd: I agree, but I gather that one of the reasons for investment grants, and so on, for productive industry is to enable that industry to build up its products to satisfy customers, whereas in this case the customers are there and the facilities are not being made available by the industry.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sheffield. I do not think that there has been much difficulty about the building of new hotels in Sheffield. Two enormous luxury hotels have been built there during the last two or three years and I have not heard that they are doing too badly. Judging by the prices which they charge, they do not seem to be short of visitors and I do not think that they could show a need for a Government subsidy. I am only asking for more information so that I can satisfy my constituents that public money is being justifiably spent, if the Amendment is accepted.
We were told that certain hotel organisations were holding back from development or cancelling developments, presumably because of the Government's failure to be more forthcoming with public subsidies. Of course, we must try to build up the tourist industry, but if we are to spend a lot of public money on doing so, is there any reason why we should not do as some other countries have done and build and run a series of hotels in tourist areas as public enterprises?
I am sure that many hon. Members will have had the pleasure of visiting Greece, for instance, during the last two or three years, as I have. I have found that the most reliable and the best hotels which I could find at reasonable prices and with very high standards were the Xenia hotels which are Government-built and owned and which do extremely well. It succeeds there, and I do not see why


it should not succeed here. Has any thought been given to that aspect of the matter? In short, I am concerned only with justifying, one way or another, the amount of money proposed to be handed out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I gather that the hon. Gentleman is asking for information about State-run hotels. He cannot do so on this Amendment.

Mr. Hynd: I had left that issue and I was saying that I should be glad to hear more detailed information to enable me to make a reasoned judgment one way or another on the justification for expending or withholding public money.

Sir John Eden: My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) made a powerful case and I suspect that the Government will find it very difficult to resist it. I wonder why the Government should wish to resist it in any event and why they are asking the House to reject the Amendment. I would have thought that they would welcome the opportunity provided by the other place to correct some of the errors of their policy in dealing with the hotel industry. They have been given a welcome opportunity to put right some of the wrongs which they have already done to the industry.
I gather that one aspect of the Government's argument is that it would be invidious to single out one service for special treatment. But the hotel industry has already been singled out for special treatment, unfortunately, for special adverse treatment. It has had imposed upon it the Selective Employment Tax and it has also had removed its assistance, the investment allowance procedure. The Government have already gone some way to recognise that it is an industry meriting special and singular treatment.
Watching over the industry with benign assiduity is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at the Board of Trade, who has under his wing the interests of the industry and the furthering of the tourist trade generally. Now the Government have singled out this industry in another way by the introduction of the new proposals for development loans for major capital expenditure on

structural work or fixed equipment, when that will play a significant part in attracting overseas visitors. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale has most graphically pointed out how ineffective these proposals are likely to prove.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will give the House some further information as to how this scheme is to be operated, and in what way he thinks that this justifies the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendments which have been proposed by another place. How is it proposed that the hotels, which are to attract overseas visitors shall be earmarked before they are constructed or before the new equipment is installed? I should have thought that it was perfectly clear that unless we have new and modernised hotels throughout the country we are not likely to continue to attract visitors to the extent that we have been doing.
Secondly, I should have thought that there was some relevance in what might be called the negative side of the coin, namely, the desirability of providing adequately for the rising standard of demand of holiday-makers within the country. These are important points which should be dealt with by the Minister. I cannot understand how he will determine what capital expenditure will attract overseas tourists and why, although I accept the balance of payments point, apart from that, he should disregard the aspect of keeping in the country those who would otherwise go abroad.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade Ministers, of all Ministers, will not be too inflexible on these matters. They should not lend themselves to the diktat of the former First Secretary, who laid down a rigid law from which he appeared to be totally unprepared to depart. The right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade Ministers are dealing with the realities of our industrial and commercial life and they, above all, must be aware of the need for flexibility and of the need to adjust regulations where it is manifestly in the national interest so to do. This is clearly the case with the hotel and catering industry and I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider their attitude on the Amendment.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) has raised certain points and I would like to say to him from this side of the House that we are not interested in subsidies. The Amendment refers to the payment of grants and refers to Clause 1 of the Bill. The subsidy is something else which has been dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade in another context, outside of this Bill.
Mention has been made of hotels in Sheffield. There is one new hotel in my constituency and another in the centre of the city. Both are Trust House hotels and as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) has pointed out, certain hotels are not continuing with their programmes. I believe that the Trust house group is one of those which has curtailed its development.
I have been actively concerned, in discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Trade in Sheffield, with the problem of attracting businessmen to the city. Businessmen will go to London, but they are reluctant to make the journey to Sheffield. I feel that they will be less reluctant now that there are two new hotels in the city in addition to those which already exist. This is accommodation which makes it possible for the heads of businesses to invite their customers to the city. When the customers come to the hotel, they do not stay there; they are able to go out and see the products being made. Invariably, the key export order is one that is clinched either after a reasonable evening meal or the next morning, when the customer has had time to sleep on the arguments put forward.
A country like ours must not only cater for the tourist trade, but for the travelling businessman. These people are travelling around Europe and America and are willing to buy here. If we have good hotels, whether by means of this Clause or other grants, and if these hotels are up to international standard, then export customers will be delighted to come to this country.

Mr. Jay: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to a number of questions which have been raised. I would like to say, first of all to the hon.

Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), who has great knowledge of this industry, as have other hon. Members who have spoken, that it is not our intention to administer this development loan scheme in any rigid or inflexible manner. We are already discussing the working of it with the British Travel Association and the British Hotels and Restaurants Association, and the "Little Neddy". We shall take into account what hon. Gentlemen have said and, any points which may be raised in these consultations.
I still believe, in spite of all that has been said, and in the light of these consultations, that this will be a considerable contribution to the development of the industry. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd)—Sheffield appears to be very well represented in the House this evening—that when we are using public money and offering loans of this kind, directed to one particular industry, although there is a good case for doing so, we have to set some limits and have considerable safeguards to see that the loan of public money is justified and is properly used.
After all, we are making available sums of up to £5 million in one year for the benefit of a particular industry. If firms in this industry do not feel that it is any use to them, they are under no obligation to accept it. Money will only be loaned to people who think that they can make some good use of it. If we are to be told that even this amount of assistance will not enable the British hotel industry to develop and modernise, there will be some people, like my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, who will begin to say that perhaps this industry ought to be organised in some other way.
I hasten to add that I am not proposing this, because I believe that the industry, as at present organised, and with all the help given by the Government, is perfectly capable of increasing its earnings and developing in the way in which we all wish.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Two factors are involved. One is the amount of money. The other is the time in which it is available. This is a particularly inappropriate industry to have too narrow a


time band in which advantage can be taken of the offer.

Mr. Jay: I take that point. This is an experimental scheme. We have not limited it to one year. We have said that it will certainly be available up to the end of one year. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to extend it beyond that, that is a tribute to the scheme; it shows that it is of some value to the industry.
Some fairly large figures have been used in the debate as estimates of the finance which the industry has lost as a result of the change-over from the investment allowance. Figures even as high as £20 million have appeared in the Press. We are dealing this afternoon with much smaller sums. According to my information, with a 40 per cent. Corporation Tax and with the loss of the 30 per cent. investment allowance, the figures work out in this way, on the basis of the actual capital expenditure which was carried out by the industry in 1964. The amount forgone in the loss of investment allowance in a year would be £2½ million and as much as £1½ million of this would be recouped by reason of

the increase in initial allowances. Therefore, on this test alone only £1 million is at stake.

That has to be compared with the very large figures which the hon. Gentleman gave of about £350 million as the total earnings from tourists and a quite considerable sum, though less than that, as the total turnover of the hotel and restaurant industry. As compared with the £1 million, we are offering up to £5 million in development loans to the industry.

Those figures put the matter in rather better perspective. When it is viewed like that and when account is taken of the points I made earlier as to what the Government are doing in four or five different ways to assist hotels, it is reasonable to think that the industry has every chance of developing its earnings with this help, and it would be inappropriate to go still further and add the investment grant.

Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 80.

Division No. 172.]
AYES
[8.2 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Molloy, William


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blackburn, F.
Horner, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Redhead, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E M,
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hynd, John
Roebuck, Roy


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkln, S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Judd, Frank
Slater, Joseph


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Snow, Julian


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitaker, Ben


Floud, Bernard
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Winnick, David


Fowler, Gerry




Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mikardo, Ian



Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Harper and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Pardoe, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Bessell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Teeling, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thorpe, Jeremy


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Weatherill, Bernard


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Webster, David


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Whitelaw, William


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
More, Jasper
Woreley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Blaker and


Glyn, Sir Richard
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Grant.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 10, at end insert:
(f) the extraction of timber and works ancillary thereto.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in this Amendment.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make the extraction of timber and works that are ancillary to the extraction of timber a qualifying industrial process for plant and machinery grants. We ask the House to reject the Amendment for three main reasons: first, it is outside the scope and intentions of the Bill; secondly, the forestry industry does not fall within the category of industries that require the highest priority for Government assistance in the present economic circumstances; and, thirdly, there is already an adequate system of Government financial assistance to forestry.
I remind the House that the scope of the Bill is, broadly, to provide investment incentives for industry in the sense of manufacture and production and for construction and mining. The Bill is not designed to provide incentives for agriculture, horticulture or forestry.
As the White Paper on Investment Incentives stated, there are separate

arrangements for agriculture as a key sector of economic activity. Provision for investment grants for agriculture and horticulture is made in the Agriculture Bill. The arrangements for agriculture are different in a number of important respects from those contained in the Bill.
I agree that the Amendment relates to the extraction of timber rather than the cultivation of our forests and that forestry is not covered by the other arrangments to which I have referred, and that what I have described as the mining processes of the Bill cover the extraction of peat and brine—in case hon. Members wish to raise this argument—which are not minerals. I am sure that it will be agreed by hon. Members that the extraction of these minerals is essentially similar to the mining of minerals. On the other hand, the extraction of timber is more akin to the harvesting of a crop although, in this case, a very long-term crop.
I do not deny that forestry makes an important contribution to import saving. We import approximately 90 per cent. of our requirements in timber and timber products and spend large sums abroad each year on imported timber, timber products and paper. But the application of investment incentives for forestry equipment, which is what we are discussing here, whether for cultivating or for tree felling, would not, in our view, have any immediate effect upon the balance of payments.
8.15 p.m.
To take, first, the planting of trees, many years pass before trees which have been planted can make any contribution to the economy, and the rate at which timber can be extracted depends upon the planting of forests. Moreover, most private foresters and timber merchants operate on a modest scale and do not buy enough plant and machinery to attract sizeable investment grants. For the industry as a whole, the amount at stake is not very large.
We therefore take the considered view that the needs of forestry should be looked at as a whole, rather than that we should take this one narrow section, and that these needs should not be dragged in at this very late stage to a scheme which is designed for manufacturing industry. As I have said, there is already a system for giving Government assistance to forestry.
We have considered carefully whether the present system of assistance to forestry is adequate, or whether it needs supplementing by something comparable to the special schemes under the Agriculture Bill which will provide the new investment incentives for agriculture. The Government have concluded that this would not be justified at the present time. However, there is provision for regular review of the assistance to forestry and I assure hon. Members that the Departments responsible will certainly watch the situation carefully as it develops and consider whether any improvements are called for at any time.
I again stress, however, that in our view the assistance to forestry as asked for in the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. It is much better to help forestry in the ways I have suggested. I must, therefore, ask the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

Mr. Michael Noble: Most hon. Members would have expected the Minister of State to refuse to help in this way, and might have anticipated at least some of his arguments, had they had the misfortune to read the Official Report of the proceedings of the other place. To my mind, however, it is rather tragic that at a moment like this the Minister can come to the House and say that he has decided to give no help to

an industry because, in his view, it is not sufficiently important and that the economic state of the country is such that no help should be given.
This highlights once again the Government's determination to try to scramble through, if, perhaps, only for the length of the Recess, without ever looking at the problems which are bound to face this industry and many other industries where there is a long-term serious problem and to say that they will look at them again in a year's time or yearly and see whether anything needs to be done.
The tragedy—and it is, in a way, a tragedy, and Government for many years have been involved in it—is that we have neglected forestry to a quite appalling extent. I do not think, as the Minister of State thinks, that the Forestry Commission are the people who should be doing all the planting. I do not regret any curtailment in that sphere if we can get the people who look after the land to use trees as a sensible crop and one that should be grown.
It is anomalous, to put it no higher, that at a time when the balance of payments is one of the critical problems, the Minister can admit that we are importing 90 per cent. of our timber—our import figure is, I think, about £450 million a year—and that this is not important. Of course it is important. If we are to get the situation right, although the growing of trees is a long-term programme, if the Minister would come up to my part of the world and look around he would see many thousands of acres of trees planted in the 1920's and 1930's which, are now ready for cutting and need to be extracted. That being so it is surely right—and the Minister has admitted there is not much money involved—to say now that this sort of help, which is quite small in quantity, should be given to the people who ought to be thinking out new methods of extracting the timber which is ready to be extracted.
I have said before in debates here that probably the biggest mistake the Forestry Commission has made in the 40 years of its existence is that it has never looked beyond its immediate nose—rather as the Minister is trying to do with the economic situation today. When I was young the Commission planted thousands of acres of trees but with no idea at all how it was going to get them out of those


areas in which it wanted them. Then after the war this problem hit the Commission rather hard and it proceeded to build enormously expensive roads all through its forests in order to get the timber out. Hon. Members who have been to other parts of Europe and seen the way the timber comes out, in Sweden, in the Alps, for instance, will have seen that there are not these great and very expensive forest roads built all over the place. In those countries they have other, better, much more efficient methods of extraction. Then the Commission had no idea till the paper mill came along, where it should sell the material. This was planning gone mad.
I believe the other place, in putting this Amendment before us, has done a real service in trying to concentrate our minds on more efficient methods of extraction which will make our own industry cheaper and more efficient, and a protection against having to import timber. I believe that we should support the Amendment, and I shall certainly ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to do so.

Mr. Michael Alison: I want to take issue with the Minister of State on the argument that this is really akin to agriculture. It surely cannot be denied that timber, in this sense in which we are talking about it, is not a crop for consumption in that sense. This is the preparation of an industrial material. It is akin to industrial material. It is a material integral to many aspects of industrial manufacture. It is not only a material for the making of things like window frames and furniture, a material which the furniture manufacturers use, but it is deeply related to the extraction of coal.
It is so analogous to coal, and so closely related to coal, that I cannot see how the Minister can possibly excuse not putting this particular industry into the same category as those covered by the Clause, in the same category as searching for or the extraction of coal. If the Minister is talking about the extraction of timber as being akin to a long-term—this was the phrase he used—a long-term crop, he should remember that if he were to carry that further he would discover that timber in the very long term becomes coal, and there is no reason, therefore, why he should not be prepared

to give it the same treatment as coal, on that extended time scale.
The point is of some historical significance and interest. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it, but if he has he will recall, in Professor Alan Taylor's "English History, 1914–45", the extremely interesting point which the professor brings out, namely, that the German submarine warfare, in the 1914–18 war, and developed comparatively late, after 1916, had a serious impact, above even the impact on food supplies, upon the supplies of pit props for our coal mining industry, which at that time was unsupported by oil and other mineral resources for the generation of power for British industry.
Pit props were essential to the mining industry and a large percentage came from Scandinavia, and supplies were almost entirely cut off by the success of the German submarine warfare. It was that which led to the setting up of the Forestry Commission, for the specific purpose of growing pine and other similar trees so that pit props could be supplied from British forests and we would not be subject to this sort of possible strangulation if war came a second time.
I hope that the Minister appreciates that pit props are an integral part of industrial processes. Plant and machinery required for the preparation of pit props in the forests should qualify in the forests in which the trees are felled, lopped, and turned into pit props on the spot. We want to make quite certain that he will at least agree that the preparation of pit props qualifies under the Bill. It would be much more suitable if he allowed the machinery used for the preparation of this essential industrial material to qualify, whether machinery used in forestry or for getting the material away from forests to factories, and if he were to make quite certain that the extraction of a natural feature, which is integral to the manufacturing process in factories and mines, is included in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. James Davidson: Some of the points I wish to make have been dealt with already, and I shall try to keep my remarks brief. First, comparisons have this evening already been made with agriculture, though perhaps not with fishing, but in fact these are three


industries which are normally grouped together, agriculture, forestry and fishing. Agriculture is eligible for machinery and plant—and will be eligible under the Agriculture Bill; the fishing industry is already eligible for grants given by the White Fish Authority; but, for some reason which I find very hard to understand, the forestry industry is being excluded.
The point is being made by the Government that the forestry industry is eligible for certain grants, but they are grants for planting, not for machinery or for extraction. Those grants will not, on the whole, go to people who do the extracting. Extracting is more usually done by independent contractors, and for this reason this industry is regarded as a separate part of what is the same industry.
It has been said that the amount involved is perhaps not very large. I should like to make the point that to those involved as contractors in the extracting industry the amount may be very large indeed, and to the small contractor it is a very large amount of money.
I should like to mention the aspect of employment. It has been said that this is outside the scope and function of the Bill, but surely part of the scope and function of the Bill is to try to stimulate employment in the development areas, and this is surely important. Timber extraction and forestry in general form a highly important industry in many development areas, and particularly in the north and north-east of Scotland. It would be an encouragement if help to them with their equipment were allowed under this Bill.
It would be an encouragement to private forestry. I should like to stress at this point that by private forestry I mean the planting of trees in the right place, not the wrong place, and, in passing I would say that some of us would be delighted to see rural development boards set up in due course, guaranteeing the interests of agriculture and forestry.
I know very well that in my own part of Scotland there is a very great shortage of land for planting timber, and I believe that this small Amendment would in fact assist in this way. One of the reasons why the Forestry Commission cannot get land is that it will not pay sufficiently high prices for it. If there were these

grants available for extracting machinery, that would reduce the costs of extraction, reduce the costs of timber production, and, therefore, would enable the Forestry Commission to offer slightly higher prices for land and thus make it more readily available for planting.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I am trying to following the hon. Member's argument, but he was speaking of people planting timber and saying that they were not the same people who take it out. In this case how can this Amendment assist them?

Mr. Davidson: It is one continuous operation—is it not?—planting, growing, and extracting timber. Therefore, the final end product and its price is closely related to the original price of the land purchased for planting. It is the same with agriculture and it is a reasonable argument. The point has been made that 90 per cent. of our timber is imported, but I make it slightly more according to figures I have studied. I believe that the value is nearer £700 million than the £400 million mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
Forestry is in every sense closely related to manufacturing industry and is therefore completely within the scope of the Bill. The point about pit props and the connection with coal has already been made and coal is specifically mentioned in the Bill. There is also a reference to furniture and
the making of any article;".
No one can possibly dispute that paper-making is a manufacturing industry. Timber is important to building and the Bill specifically mentions the construction industry. I have looked at the Bill very carefully, for it is an interesting Measure, and I cannot possibly understand why forestry has been excluded.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I do not think that many of us on this side of the House were very optimistic, when we saw this Amendment, that the Government were likely to accept it. But I must say, with respect to the Minister of State, that I do not think that the words he used were those which would most encourage the private forestry industry. Perhaps in this context I should declare an interest, for I am a timber grower.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not an industry that demanded the highest priority of attention from the Government. I think that he has used most ill-chosen words and I invite him to make it clear that it is part of Government policy to support the forestry industry. I hope that he will. What the Government do not always appreciate is the importance of confidence to an industry. A moment ago we had a debate on the hotel industry. What happened to that industry was a crisis of confidence in the Government's intention to support it. This resulted from an accumulation of different measures.
There is a risk of something very similar happening in the timber industry. I am sure that the House will realise that the decision to plant a wood is immensely long term. There is no other industry where confidence matters more, for the simple reason that there is no prospect of a quick return from the planting of a tree. There is no other industry to which support over a long period is more important. It is most important for the Government therefore to measure their words in speaking about this industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show that the Government are behind it.
Secondly, I believe that the Minister is wrong not only in the way he set it out but in what he said—that it is not an important industry at this moment in the context of the balance of payments. I shall not repeat the figures about imports and exports but will merely underline what has been said in terms of the balance of payments.

The Amendment is concerned with increased efficiency of the industry. We have a series of grants, the most important of which is a grant for the planting of new forests. In other words, the emphasis on grants under the present system is entirely on the capital installation of new forests. What is needed in the emphasis in future is held towards the efficient extraction of existing forests. Assistance in this direction would be a direct and immediate assistance to the balance of payments.

The existing grants are building up wealth for the future and that is fine, but the Amendment would assist extraction at the moment and enable timber to be got out more efficiently and therefore

more cheaply. It would be of direct help to the balance of payments. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman put this point in a discouraging way but the point itself is wrong.

In his concluding remarks, the right hon. Gentleman said something about the Government keeping this matter under review. I invite him to say whether that is just a form of words or whether he really means it and that it is indeed the Government's intention to look at the situation of the industry. This is not a party point. I can be as rude as he would like about the record of Conservative Governments in looking at this problem in a clear and coherent way. I ask for an undertaking, if we are not to have this Amendment, that the words of the right hon. Gentleman are not just a mere form but are seriously meant so that the part the industry can play in our balance of payments situation will be looked into in future.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I have been interested in forestry all my life and had a part in the most expensive extracting machinery during the war in getting timber out of German woods with a pick and shovel when I was a prisoner because we were allowed to extract only the roots of the trees and the stumps. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was a very expensive way and very hard work and that machinery is badly needed in our woodlands for extraction purposes.
There is a large area of forestry in my constituency, Thetford Chase, probably one of our largest forests. It stretches from my constituency through South Norfolk. These woods were planted 30 or 40 years ago and now a very large programme of extraction is coming along. More and more machinery is needed for the area.
As my hon. Friends have said, the industry has had little to thank any Government for over the past years. It needs a dose of confidence now if it is to go on with the cycle, so necessary in forestry, of planting and felling, which is such an enormously long-term business.
If one puts a stop on any particular part of that cycle—which could happen if it were shown that the Government were not sympathetic to forestry—it has a bad effect upon the whole of this big


industry, which could save a tremendous amount in imports. We still have large areas of land in this country which could well have been afforested and I believe that we could save an immense amount of money in growing our own timber.
I, too, was disturbed by the words of the Minister of State in referring to agriculture and forestry as being rather second-rate to industry in the towns. He appeared to put manufacturing industry far above agriculture and forestry. Indeed, if he does not do anything else he should try and dispel that impression and I hope that he will.

Mr. Darling: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the criticisms of my observations and also to the case that has been put forward for accepting the Lords' Amendment.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) about the importance of agriculture and forestry. I do not think that I suggested that they were not important to the national economy. They are tremendously important. I was merely saying that after consultations with the other Government Departments concerned we have decided that it is far better to help forestry, in the way suggested in the Amendment, under other legislation than this Bill.
I do not want to spell out the anomalies which would be created if we kept bringing additional industries, trades or processes into the provisions of the Bill when such industries or trades are excluded under the principles laid down in the Bill.

Mr. Noble: Very much the same sort of remark was made in the other place. A noble Lord asked whether the Minister there was saying that the Government intended to bring in legislation to deal with this problem in another Bill, and the answer he received was, "No". If this is the Minister's answer, even if something may happen in three or four years' time he should make it clear that what he has in mind is in the future, and not something that will be included in the Agriculture Bill, or something of that sort.

Mr. Darling: I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in the

other place. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the question was directed to the contents of the Agriculture Bill, which is at present going through the House. The answer is that it is not intended to satisfy the demand for an extra grant for forestry within the terms of that Bill, but, as I have already said, arrangements exist under present legislation—as the right hon. Gentleman knows far better than I do—for continuous reviews of the needs of forestry, and in the course of these reviews, in the not too far distant future, the Government intend to see whether additional assistance is needed.
I thought that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) was going to speak for the timber growers of Chelsea when he began, but he went on to declare his own interest. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that the national economy derives economic assistance from the timber industry in the long term. We obtain assistance in the long term from timber planting now, but in the short term we derive very little advantage, whereas assistance given to the extraction industry has an immediate benefit for the economy. The only quarrel between us is on the question of what legislation, and in what form assistance should be given.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) pursued the argument that we should give Government grants for the purpose of increasing the price to be paid by the Government to private land owners in order to obtain land for afforestation. This seemed to be a proposition that no Government would be likely to accept.

Mr. James Davidson: I am sorry if I did not make my argument clear. If we reduce the costs of the extraction of timber we increase the profit made by the private growers of that timber and can, therefore, allow a higher price to be offered for the land which is purchased. One reason why the Forestry Commission cannot get land is that it is not offering a high enough price.

Mr. Darling: It comes to the same thing in the end. If the hon. Member has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Committee he will know that on more than one occasion it was pointed out that the purpose of investment grants is not to increase dividends paid to shareholders


or to increase profits but to encourage people to invest more money in the machinery and equipment which is needed to increase the rate of productivity. We can argue these points on another occasion.
8.45 p.m.
I was intrigued by the arguments of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about pit props. He probably knows that the purpose of the Coal Board's modernisation schemes at the moment is to get rid of things like pit props. I see the argument, but the machinery and the equipment required at the sawmills, because this is a productive, manufacturing process, would, of course, attract investment grants. It ought to be made clear, and the right hon. Member for Argyll skated over this——

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman appreciates, I am sure, that some of the preparation of pit props is not done in sawmills but in situ, in the forest. We want to be clear that machinery used in the forest in trimming and lopping, which may be interchangeable with the felling of trees, is, nevertheless, eligible.

Mr. Darling: I see the point, but this is also a matter which we have discussed and considered carefully. The conclusion to which we came was that, for the activities which took place in the forest, the proper assistance that the Government gave should come under other legislation than this Bill.

The right hon. Member for Argyll skated over the grants which are given for planting and replanting of trees, the management grants and the dedication schemes, some of which he was responsible for. At least, he had the job of administering them. Of course, the level of grants for planting and replanting is reviewed at least every three years under this legislation. The last review having been made in 1964, all this has to be reviewed next year. This is one of the points which was in our minds when we suggested that, under other legislation, some of the matters raised by hon. Members might receive the favourable consideration for which they are asking, but I can give no undertakings.

Mr. Corfield: Surely we have now reached a situation in which mobile equipment which is moved into the forest to make gates and hurdles is making an article and is covered in the Bill, whereas if the materials are moved down to a much more efficient sawmill so that the process is carried out much more commercially, the equipment is not in the Bill. Is this not absurd?

Mr. Darling: Not at all. We are going back to our earlier arguments. It would be a mistake to begin the Committee stage all over again.

Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 75.

Division No. 173.]
AYES
[8.57 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Dobson, Ray
Heffer, Eric S.


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Horner, John


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ellis, John
Hynd, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ensor, David
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Faulds, Andrew
Janner, Sir Barnett


Beaney, Alan
Fitt, Gerald (Belfast, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Floud, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blackburn, F.
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Fowler, Gerry
Judd, Frank


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kenyon, Clifford


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Brooks, Edwin
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lee, John (Reading)


Coleman, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, Neil


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamling, William
MacDermot, Niall


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William
Macdonald, A. H.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harper, Joseph
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Haseldine, Norman
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dickens, James
Hazell, Bert
MacPherson, Malcolm




Marquand, David
Richard, Ivor
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James


Millar, Bruce
Roebuck, Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Molloy, William
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Murray, Albert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Newens, Stan
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Small, William



Redhead, Edward
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Fitch and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodnew, Victor
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Alison, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pardoe, J.


Batsford, Brian
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Bessell, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Heseltine, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Body, R.
Hornby, Richard
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thorpe, Jeremy


Crouch, D. L.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Weatherill, Bernard


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Webster, David


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Whitelaw, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Glyn, Sir Richard
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Grant.

Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Barber, Mr. Corfield, Mr. Darling, Mr. Jay and Mr. Dan Jones: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Jay.]

To withdraw immediately.

Later—

Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH GAS BOARD (REVALUATION)

8.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move,
That the Valuation (Scottish Gas Board) (Scotland) Order, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I said something about the necessity for the Order. As Scottish hon. Members, at least, will have noticed, this is the year of revaluation in Scotland. The purpose of the Order is to bring the effect of revaluation to bear on the Scottish Gas Board. If the Order were not approved, the effect of revaluation would be to lower the Board's rate payments relative to other ratepayers, which would obviously be unfair to ratepayers as a whole. The Order is brought forward now because it is required by September, so that it can have effect on the rate payments to be made by the Board in the current year.
The Scottish Gas Board is not valued for rating purposes in the normal way by the local assessor. Since 1963–64 the Board has had a basic rateable value of approximately £616,000, which was laid down by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, in place of the valuations which had applied up to that time, and which were based on the revenue principle.
The Assessor of Public Undertakings is responsible, under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, for the annual adjustment of this basic value by reference to changes in the output of gas, and he is also responsible for the apportionment of the rateable value between the rating areas in which gas is manufactured or supplied. Section 12 of the 1963 Act also provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of any substantial change of circumstances it is necessary for him to do so he may vary the basic rateable value. He does this after consultation with the Gas Board, the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and the local authority associations.
The general revaluation which has just taken place in Scotland constitutes a sufficient change of circumstances to

make necessary the Order which increases the basic rateable value from approximately £616,000 to £790,169. This figure is proportional to the average increase in total valuation, as brought out in the statutory estimates of the effect of revaluation, which the assessors have submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The effect of the change in the basic valuation of the Scottish Gas Board will be to put it in broadly the same position relative to other ratepayers as it was in 1965–66.
I hope that with that short explanation the House will be willing to approve the Order.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: Earlier in the Session the temptation to talk for several hours on Scottish gas might have been difficult to resist, but at this time I do not believe that the House desires a very long discussion on this important topic. We agree with the Under-Secretary of State's argument that when everything else in Scotland is being revalued the Scottish Gas Board should suffer the same fate, because in these days revaluation always seems to be upwards.
I have one or two simple questions for the Under-Secretary of State. I think that the Secretary of State is right to take this action, but there was recently a 13 per cent. increase in the cost of gas in Scotland, and although this is the revaluation year in Scotland it is two years off in England. Will this mean that for industrialists coming to Scotland, who are already paying more for their gas, the cost will be even greater in Scotland, and therefore the attraction of Scotland will be less?
My second point, which is of some importance, is that, if I heard the Under-Secretary of State correctly, the increase in the valuation of the Gas Board's assets has been the average of the increase of the valuation in Scotland. Is this fair? The increases that have been drawn to my attention in commercial and industrial concerns, which is after all what the Gas Board is, have been enormously above the figure of about 25 to 30 per cent. which has been given here. Is it fair that the Gas Board should be treated in this respect very much more lightly than other commercial concerns, which is what seems


to have happened? May we not be in danger of running into the same kind of problem as already exists in Glasgow, where industrial valuations have been greatly increased and industry is finding it difficult to pay the rates that are likely to be demanded. I know that appeals are pending, but I imagine that there will be no appeal from this valuation. Would it not be fairer that the Gas Board's increases should be related to industrial valuation and not an average between domestic and industrial valuation? If that were so, what would be the valuation?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman's first point was whether this increase in valuation would increase the amount of rates which the Gas Board would have to pay and therefore, perhaps, involve an increase in the price of gas. The increase which the Board will have to pay will be only the average increase, not in rateable value, but in rates burden, which will be borne, by and large, by ratepayers in Scotland as a whole. The increase in basic valuation is exactly proportionate to the general increase in valuations over the whole of Scotland and therefore if the rate burden between the two years were the same there would be no increase in the burden on the Gas Board.
As we know, the rate burden between the two years is not the same. My point is that the increase in rates payable by the Gas Board will be, in terms of real rate burden as distinct from valuation, approximately the average borne by ratepayers in Scotland as a whole. It may not be exactly proportionate, because there is the need to split the basic rateable valuation between the different rateable authorities and therefore what the Board eventually pays is made up of individual rate burdens coming to a cumulative total. However, the general effect will be as I have stated it. By itself this will not affect the burden of the Gas Board in such a way that it would affect the price of gas.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the sort of calculation made here is fair and whether the Gas Board should not be treated on the same basis in terms of increase of rateable value as industrial and commercial concerns. One could argue a number of

different bases of valuation for the Gas Board. The thing on which virtually everyone agreed before the 1963 Act was that the revenue principle which determined Gas Board valuation was unsatisfactory, and it may even have been during the right hon. Gentleman's term at the Scottish Office that the change to the present system was made.
It was provided that when the basic valuation was to be altered in the way provided by this Order there should be this process of consultation. As I have said, the Order was subject to consultation with the Gas Board, the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and the local authority associations. It is up to these bodies to make their representations to the Secretary of State about the way in which changes in the basic valuation should be made.
I do not think that one can compare the Gas Board with ordinary industrial and commercial concerns. It is because such a comparison would be unfair that we need special arrangements for the valuation of the Board. There is no hypothetical rent. None of the standards normally applied by assessors in determining rateable values can be applied in any real sense to the valuation of the Gas Board. We have the special arrangements and, on the whole, they work well in holding the burden between the Gas Board, the local authorities and the interests of ratepayers generally. The normal process has been gone through in this instance, and I therefore hope that the House will approve this Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved
That the Valuation (Scottish Gas Board) (Scotland) Order, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — LAND REGISTRATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session amending the Land Registration Act 1925 it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund under section 5 of the Land Registration Act 1936 into the Insurance Fund under the said Act of 1925.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — BORSTAL, GAYNES HALL

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

9.10 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I am fortunate, at this early hour, in being able to refer to the Gaynes Hall open borstal institution in the parish of Great Staughton, in my constituency, which has been an open borstal for about 20 years. As a former Home Office Minister, I am not against the principle of having some open borstals, and this evening my aim is exploratory rather than critical. But if we are to have open borstals I suggest that certain conditions should be observed.
The first of those conditions is that those lads who are likely to want to escape should not be sent to an open borstal. The second is that there should be adequate arrangements to check the whereabouts of the lads who are at the borstal. The third is that, if the lads do escape, they should not normally be returned to open conditions. They should know that that is so and, therefore, this should be one of the sanctions to prevent their escaping. I hope that no reasonable person familiar with this problem would dispute those conditions.
During its 20 years of existence, this borstal has been used mainly for those lads considered to be not only suitable for open borstals, but the most promising types for training and reform. As a result, Gaynes Hall probably has more advanced training facilities than any other borstal in the country.
The success rate used to be fairly high. I do not know what it is now, but I should like to know what it has been in the last year or two. The absconding rate at Gaynes Hall throughout the 20 years of its existence has varied considerably, but in the past 18 months it has been very bad indeed. In 1965, out of a total of 358 lads there during the year—that is, taking those who are there at the beginning of the year and those who came in during the year—no fewer than 101 absconded. The absconding rate, therefore, was 28 per cent. During the first six months of this year, the position was not quite so bad, but bad enough. Out of 276 lads there in that

period, 49 absconded during the first six months. That is an absconding rate of 17·6 per cent.
If we take the total of 150 who absconded during the 18 months I have described, we find that 79 of them were sent back to open conditions at Gaynes Hall. In addition, 11 were still at large. It is, therefore, only the balance of 60 who were apparently returned to conditions of security instead of to open conditions.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady the Minister of State for coming here this evening. I am thankful that I have not kept her, as once was feared, into the early hours of the morning, but, as it is, we are given a little more time to consider this very important matter. I should be glad if she could tell me how many absconded in July this year.
Many of those who have absconded in the past have committed indictable offences, including burglary, house-breaking, stealing cars and taking cars without the consent of their owners. Most of those offences were committed in my constituency and have given rise to much anxiety, and indeed indignation, locally. Local anxieties reached their climax when, on 20th April, a lad absconded and raped a married woman in the morning while her husband was away at work. The lad concerned pleaded guilty to that offence at the assizes held a month or so later and is now in prison. As this was the only case of this kind in 20 years I mention it only because it greatly increased the long-felt anxieties of people living in the neighbourhood and brought their fears to a climax.
Since then, I have twice seen the Home Secretary about the question of abscondings from this borstal and action has already been taken with a view to improving the situation locally. For example, there is now a police officer stationed there and living in the village of Great Stranghton nearby. I understand that the Home Secretary hopes to arrange for one or two local residents to be on the board of visitors. That will be a good thing and will increase the liaison between the governor and his staff and the local community.
I have been told that security arrangements for ensuring that the lads are present and have not absconded have been reviewed and improved, but I should be


grateful if the Minister of State could enlighten me on the following matters. What is being done to improve the security arrangements? What steps are being taken to ensure that the high standards of selection which prevailed in the past will be carried on in future? Thirdly—and this a relatively new problem in relation to Gaynes Hall—what does the Home Secretary propose to do about the growing problem caused by the proximity of this borstal to Grafham Water, which was opened by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh last month?
This is not only the largest artificial reservoir in the country but it is rapidly becoming an important pleasure resort. The gates of Gaynes Hall are only about a quarter of a mile from the shores of Grafham Water. Grafham Water is already attracting over 1,000 cars and over 3,000 people who go there, and I am glad they do go to enjoy themselves, on Saturdays and Sundays in the summer. I realise that Grafham Water came many years after the borstal was established, but now that both are so close together the security risk is obviously increased. I do not wish publicly to go into details about this, for reasons which the House will apperciate, but I would be glad if the Home Office could bear in mind this factor and if the right hon. Lady could give us her views about it.
I hope that I have said enough to enable the right hon. Lady to give me a reply this evening which will reassure my constituents about the matters which I have raised.

9.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has raised a very important question this evening. As he was a Home Office Minister and once occupied my position, I know that he appreciates the difficulties attendant upon prisons and borstals, keeping large numbers of people together, and open prisons and borstals. I shall deal, first, with the general subject of open borstals so as to set the background against which we must consider Gaynes Hall.
There are 12 open borstals in the country for about 2,000 boys. The functions

of all borstals is to train these boys over a reasonable period to lead a useful, honest life and to change the attitude of mind which led the boy to get into trouble. It is the job of borstal to try to lead the boy to want to live a better life and to fit him to be able to maintain it once he has started. This, I believe, can best be done in conditions as nearly free as the freedom to which he must eventually return. We must help him, if possible, to learn to use this freedom.
Clearly, certain boys, especially those with backgrounds of violence, serious mental or emotional disturbances, and sexual offences, ought not to go to an open borstal, and boys of that type are never sent there. For them, training is more difficult. It is true that there are fewer escapes from closed borstals than from open establishments, but there are also fewer long-term successes, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates. Boys who get the opportunity to go to an open borstal get a better training and a better chance of ultimate success. For this reason, we feel that as many as possible should go to open borstal.
The second matter which I would like to discuss is the method of selection of boys to go to open borstals. This is done, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, at an allocation centre. There are two of these, one in Manchester and one in London. In both, the boys are received as soon as possible after they have been sentenced. They stay in the allocation centre for at least two weeks while their records, health, educational standards and family background are considered. They are then allocated to the borstal whose training seems most likely to meet their needs.
The boys sent to Gaynes Hall are, in general, in the 18 to 20 age group, healthy and of good intelligence. They are the sort of boys who have the best chance of succeeding in their borstal training. Gaynes Hall has one of the highest success rates in the country, more than 50 per cent., although the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the measurement of success rate is not exact.
I would now like to say a little about the conditions at Gaynes Hall. It is an open borstal, so that it has no perimeter wall, no bars and no bolts. The boys


live in single-storey brick buildings and the establishment is surrounded by its own farmland and lies in the rural area of Huntingdonshire.
One of the prime needs of any establishment for young people, good or bad sick or well, is space; and open borstals, containing the concentrated energies of anything up to 200 young men, do need plenty of space. They also need work, preferably work which is both constructive and fairly heavy. For these reasons, most are in the country and have land enough for some farming and the like to be learnt. Gaynes Hall has its own gardens supplying its kitchens and selling salad crops locally, its cereal and hay, a pig-breeding unit, and beef cattle.
The boys learn and perform all the tasks involved and do them well enough to put up creditable performances in the county show and county rally. There are five vocational training courses for groups of 12 to 15 at a time, two learning motor mechanics, one building, one painting and decorating and one precision-instrument making. In addition, there is a smaller group doing baking. The borstal has the services of a tutor organiser, and of a number of teachers from the local education authority who come in in the evenings.
Boys attend the local church for Communion and special services and have assisted in archaeological digs, run fund-raising stalls for an orphanage, and taken part in other useful work for the community. I have mentioned already that they enter for the county show, and have done well in it. They also have a branch of the Young Farmers' Club and visit other clubs in the district. They also organised the county eliminator for the Royal Show Tractor Driving Competition last year.
A team was entered for the County Youth Public Speaking Contest and gained second place. Boys play cricket, rugby, soccer and five-a-side matches locally, and teams enter national canoeing events. They are keen members of a weight training and weight lifting club and they won 75 certificates in 1965 from the British Amateur Weight Lifting Association. All these activities are good in themselves but, more important, they let the community see and know the boys and prevent the boys from

feeling hopelessly rejected before their adult life is begun.
The most important element of all is that they give a boy a foothold in the decent law-abiding community when he leaves the borstal. There will always be a risk of abscondings in open borstals, and because of the risk we have made special arrangements to pay compensation for material losses that are not covered by insurance, to people living in the immediate vicinity. This I readily admit, does not in any way compensate them for the alarm, anxiety and vexation. But we do try to take every possible step to protect the outside community. Within the borstal itself there are many ways of keeping the boys under supervision and of estimating their progress before they are judged ready for activities in which they would have the best opportunities for absconding, and of keeping check of their whereabouts.
There are nine roll calls a day, so that the absence of a boy comes to notice very quickly. We have the very valuable and watchful assistance of the police and, as a result of discussions with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, extra mobile patrols are now maintained. In addition the boys have a full and busy day. Absconding, nevertheless, occurs and a statistical table of these was published as a Written Answer in reply to the right hon. and learned Member on 7th July. As that Answer showed, there were 101 abscondings in 1965 and there have been 62 so far this year.
Seen as a proportion of approximately 160 boys, I know that it is a disturbingly large number. It must be said that this does not fairly represent the risk. There are 160 boys in Gaynes Hall every day of the year.
They are not always the same boys. Indeed, as I hope to show in a few minutes, absconding is largely restricted to one group of boys. But the risk is there for every boy for 24 hours a day every day. Seen in this light, although every absconding is a sort of failure, the total is less formidable.
As to the group most at risk and the group among whom there are most abscondees, 41 out of the 62 abscondings this year occurred within the first four weeks of the boys' arrival at Gaynes Hall and 21 of them within the first week of


arrival there. There remain the other later ones, and these may be more serious.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned one particular case of an absconding which resulted in a youth being convicted of the rape of a local woman. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is 20 years since any similar occurrence arose, although this does not make it any less distressing for the woman concerned and her family. I entirely share the concern which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed at this distressing occurrence and I join him in expressing my sympathy and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the victim and her family. I do not think that anyone would wish deliberately to give this case any more unnecessary publicity, which can only cause further harm to those most deeply concerned.
This was, for the youth concerned, his first period of borstal training, although he had previous convictions as a juvenile. I want to make it perfectly clear that the boy had no previous history of violence of any kind, nor of any sexual offences. He was undergoing borstal training after conviction for simple larceny. This offence was in line with those he had committed previously. I do not think that any fault could be attached to the allocation authorities in this case.
There are many reasons for a boy to abscond, as many reasons as there are boys. Some are harmless, even pathetic, and may include home difficulties, anxiety about a girl friend, or a quarrel with another boy in the borstal. Others are more serious, in that they represent deliberate attempts to escape and remain unlawfully free, or "on the run".
The former often cause little trouble. The boy may not get more than a few yards away or may himself return quite soon. At worst he will go home to try to sort out his trouble and usually is soon recovered. In these cases the governor might properly be willing to keep the boy in an open borstal. Whether he does so or not depends on the decision of an assistant director of the Prison Service, who will determine, in the light of the circumstances, whether the boy will remain in an open borstal or be sent to a closed establishment.
I can assure the House that absconding is never taken lightly and that a serious absconding will result in a boy's losing his place in an open borstal. It will also result in the boy's being sent for a period to the corrective training centre at Reading before his reallocation to a closed borstal. These facts are well known to the boys and are to some extent a deterrent.
There are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told the House, changes coming to this area. In particular, a lido and recreation centre are planned for Grafham Water.

Sir D. Renton: It is already in existence. There is a sailing club and a fishing club. Everything is already going on there, except that swimming is not yet allowed. I think that it will be one day.

Miss Bacon: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. He knows the area, and I do not. There is the recreation centre and the lido at Grafham Water.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that in the face of all this, Gaynes Hall should no longer remain an open borstal. I cannot accept this. The borstal cannot be closed as if it were a door. Even if we were to build walls around it, or put bars on the windows or bolts on the doors, the boys would have to go on working outside the walls. The alternatives are for it to remain there as an open borstal or to close down Gaynes Hall as a borstal altogether.
Many hon. Members are already aware of the gravity of the present borstal situation. We simply do not have enough borstal places for the boys who are coming from the courts. The number of committtals has risen considerably over a long period. The closed borstals are full and the open borstals are coming under pressure. The allocation centres have, from time to time, to retain boys in a sort of queue waiting to go to borstals.
Steps have been taken to improve the situation as far as possible. The second allocation centre, to which I have referred, was set up this spring to relieve the congestion at the London centre. In addition, we have recently turned a former prison at Stoke Heath into a borstal because of the shortage of borstal accommodation. The borstal population is


nearly 5,500, however, and it would be idle to suggest that we could possibly afford to give up a borstal at the present time. Gaynes Hall must, therefore, remain as a borstal, and for the reasons which I have given it must remain as an open borstal.
The boys at all borstals are encouraged within their limits to keep themselves in touch with the world to which they are to return. In a closed borstal, opportunities are limited and more must be achieved by encouraging the outside world to visit them rather than by sending them to it. The essence of an open borstal, however, is its ability to diminish the barriers, and at Gaynes Hall the boys participate in the life of the community as much as possible.
I have already mentioned all the activities at Gaynes Hall. I hope that I have shown that no boy need be driven back to lawbreaking by loneliness or boredom. The majority of inmates come from towns and cities and will return to them and must, therefore, come to terms with them. If our training borstals can

help boys to do this, they will not altogether have failed.

Sir D. Renton: Before the right hon. Lady concludes, I wonder whether she would allow me to correct one thing? She accused me of saying that I wanted Gaynes Hall to become a closed borstal. I did not do so. My wish was to find out what the right hon. Lady and the Home Secretary had in mind in view of the new development at Grafham Water. The right hon. Lady has explained the position carefully, but I should not like it to go on record that I had made the suggestion which the right hon. Lady said I had made, but did not make.

Miss Bacon: I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Later in my speech I thought that I had misinterpreted what he said. Perhaps I should have said that some people, but not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, thought that it ought to have been a closed borstal.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Ten o'clock.